Tow it if it hasn't sunk.
Florida Anchoring limits heating up
- Thread starter healhustler
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Tow it if it hasn't sunk.
Is it really fair for towns and cities to provide free dockage for boaters and compete with local businessmen and women who are trying to support their families owning and running marinas?
How would you like it if your town used your tax money to provide free towing service to boaters?
windmill29130
Guru
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2011
- Messages
- 716
- Vessel Name
- JAZ
- Vessel Make
- Ta Chaio/CT35
Where to?
A boat ramp and then to a landfill. Or offshore for fish habitat.
windmill29130
Guru
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2011
- Messages
- 716
- Vessel Name
- JAZ
- Vessel Make
- Ta Chaio/CT35
You're gonna take a 40 foot trawler or sailboat to a boat ramp and haul it to a landfill!
You're gonna take a 40 foot trawler or sailboat to a boat ramp and haul it to a landfill!
Actually in Washington they pull the boats that have been abandoned and through all the legal procedures to boat ramps where they gradually pull them up on shore. They break them apart with track loaders and then put the pieces in dumpsters to be hauled off. Most of them are old commercial fishing boats. This is part of the Derelict Vessel Removal Program. The program is funded by small amounts added to registration fees.
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/recreationedu...ages/aqr_derelict_vessel_removal_program.aspx
FF
Guru
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2007
- Messages
- 22,552
A town providing a dink dock gets far more in benefits for locals than costs.
Sure garbage comes in from the visitors , and FW goes out.
Resturant , grocery stores, cab co .and local hardware and marine supply benefit.
The folks that cruise anchoring seldom if ever use marinas , as it its a huge step down in living standards.
On the AICW , visit a marina at 11am, when its deserted of transients .
Fuel up , do the wash at the marina , go food shopping while the wash is drying dump the holding tank and take on water , after a taste.
About 2 hours later you are GONE!
The marina has had a few fuel , hardware sale$ and laundry bucks , in what normally is total dead time ,
Win - Win. Tip the dock boy , another win.
Sure garbage comes in from the visitors , and FW goes out.
Resturant , grocery stores, cab co .and local hardware and marine supply benefit.
The folks that cruise anchoring seldom if ever use marinas , as it its a huge step down in living standards.
On the AICW , visit a marina at 11am, when its deserted of transients .
Fuel up , do the wash at the marina , go food shopping while the wash is drying dump the holding tank and take on water , after a taste.
About 2 hours later you are GONE!
The marina has had a few fuel , hardware sale$ and laundry bucks , in what normally is total dead time ,
Win - Win. Tip the dock boy , another win.
Bay Pelican
Moderator Emeritus
Lots of luck with that.
If you don't live in Florida, you can't vote in Florida, all you can do is stay away and not spend your money there. People who take boats to Florida and anchor as opposed to staying in marinas aren't bringing in enough money to make a difference.
Ron
While the lack of spending money may be true for some, it is certainly not true for all. A good deal of money is spent by those of us who prefer to anchor. Bay Pelican was in Florida for one year, we anchored extensively except during the hurricane season. Our spending that year in Florida would make any tourist office employee smile.
The derelict boat situation could be solved easily if state officials addressed the issue directly. Problem is without the derelict boats those who favor anchoring restrictions would be left without a strong argument.
You're gonna take a 40 foot trawler or sailboat to a boat ramp and haul it to a landfill!
You don't go down easy, do you?
Read BandB's post. That's one way or pull them up on a rollback truck.
The option of letting them drift until they break apart isn't a good one.
janice142
Guru
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2011
- Messages
- 1,238
- Location
- USofA
- Vessel Name
- Seaweed
- Vessel Make
- Schucker mini-trawler
Not to forget, those abandoned boats and even some lived aboard are generally NOT LEGAL. I'm referring to anchor lights (almost never seen, except on cruisers) but also the state registrations are long out of date.
Boats sitting at anchor even long term are supposed to have registrations for the state they are in. I'm 100% against more laws. Simply enforce the ones already here.
Boats sitting at anchor even long term are supposed to have registrations for the state they are in. I'm 100% against more laws. Simply enforce the ones already here.
Billyfeet
Senior Member
I'm with Janice 100% The laws currently on the books in Florida if enforced would get the derelict boats and people off the water very quickly. We don't need more laws until the ones that we have are enforced.
Mule
Guru
The one issue I have with state registration is, in my viewpoint, a violation of the interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution. A Federally documented boat seems to me sales tax tribute is a violation. Otherwise no problem with derelict boats polluting and trashing being ground up.
Last edited:
The ones down the river from my marina are like that. Just a couple have anchor lights but they aren't really anchor lights they are solar powered garden lights and they don't last until dawn. Most of the registrations are out of date or missing altogether. The DNR and USCG ride past them often but apparently do not care.
Bay Pelican
Moderator Emeritus
One problem with enforcing the current Florida laws is that the derelict boats are generally not only worthless but cost a good amount to haul out and dispose of. The "owners" in many cases are judgment proof. They buy a cheap boat and abandon it when it no longer works. If the boat is in a marina, the marina owner has all sort of legal hoops to jump through, and then must pay for disposal.
Anchored boats need to be seized, towed and disposed of. Generally the owners who abandon these boats cannot be found and are judgment proof.
The new laws, I would suggest, would require as part of the initial registration some sort of surety that would pay for disposal if abandoned. This would probably only a problem for boats worth less than $20,000 as the others could rely on the value of the boat or the insurance carried on the boat.
Until the derelict boat issue is solved those in favor of restricting our anchoring rights will have a solid argument to support their position, even if the derelict boats are not what they are concerned about.
Anchored boats need to be seized, towed and disposed of. Generally the owners who abandon these boats cannot be found and are judgment proof.
The new laws, I would suggest, would require as part of the initial registration some sort of surety that would pay for disposal if abandoned. This would probably only a problem for boats worth less than $20,000 as the others could rely on the value of the boat or the insurance carried on the boat.
Until the derelict boat issue is solved those in favor of restricting our anchoring rights will have a solid argument to support their position, even if the derelict boats are not what they are concerned about.
FF
Guru
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2007
- Messages
- 22,552
>Just a couple have anchor lights but they aren't really anchor lights they are solar powered garden lights and they don't last until dawn.<
A visit to any battery seller , even radio shack will find far better batts , thar easily last all night .
They will cost more than the yard walkway fixture , and not be legal as anchor lights, but anything is better than nothing.
A visit to any battery seller , even radio shack will find far better batts , thar easily last all night .
They will cost more than the yard walkway fixture , and not be legal as anchor lights, but anything is better than nothing.
That only works for boats registered in FL. And just imagine the uproar on boating forums if a state announced that all boats were now subject to a disposal fee as a condition of registration.
I see your point that the owner of a boat should be responsible for its final disposal but I don't think your plan will work.
Mule
Guru
It would suit me to turn the issue over to the Coast Guard, require documentation on all boats wider than 101 inches (legal hwy width). Increase the documentation fees to cover it.
The mish mash of state regulations from state to state, city to city, county to county is a mess.
However I am not a states rights guy at all.
Bay Pelican
Moderator Emeritus
Ron
The derelict boat problem is not a transient problem as the transients have movable boats and are usually in decent shape. Florida already has requirements for either a registration or a cruising permit (forget the term) so that if you want to be in Florida for longer than 30 days (?) you have to register.
From my experience the derelict boats are not brought in from other states but are bought cheaply in Florida, used as residences and then abandoned when no longer of any use. I am sure there are exceptions but the number of exceptions would not be a problem.
Just my opinion.
PS. I discussed this with one Florida politician and his/her response was that his/her constituents did not want the anchored boats period and the derelict boats were a great argument in favor of anchoring restrictions.
Mule
Guru
Operative term, Florida Politican, with allegiance to their voter first rather than the Constitution of The US. Interstate commerce clause. The constitution is paraded out when convenient. Just another reason the teeth should be pulled out of county, city, state laws. Perhaps state and local should have authority to enforce FEDERAL laws, but not be allowed to make up their own rules to please their donors. The waterways belong to ALL the people, not just some CS lot owner.
How far would it go if a home owner determined he did not want to put up withe the noise of jet engines at an airplane repair facility on the airport grounds, and did not like the view of those parked airplanes. Local politians pass a city ordinance regulating same.
How far Doya think that would fly...ha ha. Same damn thing. This local thing needs a real good federal slap down.
How far would it go if a home owner determined he did not want to put up withe the noise of jet engines at an airplane repair facility on the airport grounds, and did not like the view of those parked airplanes. Local politians pass a city ordinance regulating same.
How far Doya think that would fly...ha ha. Same damn thing. This local thing needs a real good federal slap down.
Last edited:
Mule
Guru
There is a difference. The water, and the navigational waterways are owned by the people. Private property not under federal jurisdiction is altogether another matter. If you parked your house on some vacant land on an Air Force base the Feds may rightfully object and or regulate but it would only be the Feds. So how is it we (the Federal Government) allow a small segment of local government have the right to regulate waterways is beyond me.
Sometimes bigger government is better. This is one of those times. The Most workable seems the Coast Guard sets the standard and both the CG, State and local be authorized to enforce seamless uniform regulations state to state.
As are the roads, highways and state parks. The federal, state and local governments are the people's representatives. They have the same rights to regulate waterways within their borders as they have to regulate highways.
Last edited by a moderator:
cappy208
Guru
It is true that the navigable waterways are owned by the people.
However, when you 'make fast, anchor, or run aground' a completely different set of legal rules apply.
These people are anchoring (or mooring) to the sovereign states territory. This is why the dilemma exists. All states have the ability to tax (regulate) in whatever way they see fit. (( Unless it is in a federally designated anchorage))
If the residents of particular states want to change (to make it less or more lenient) that's their choice by the ballot box.
However, when you 'make fast, anchor, or run aground' a completely different set of legal rules apply.
These people are anchoring (or mooring) to the sovereign states territory. This is why the dilemma exists. All states have the ability to tax (regulate) in whatever way they see fit. (( Unless it is in a federally designated anchorage))
If the residents of particular states want to change (to make it less or more lenient) that's their choice by the ballot box.
Last edited:
Mule
Guru
=================================================
A town cannot set a speed limit on an interstate highway they have annexed no matter what the city counsel or mayor wants to do. There are federal and state regulations in play. IE: Mansfield, TX still wants to drop the speed limit on US 287. The have not been able to get approval.
Mule
Guru
If the residents of particular states want to change (to make it less or more lenient) that's their choice by the ballot box.
Cappy
I am not too sure about that. The intercostal waterway and other navigatabe waterways are not subject to the whelms of the locals elected or not without siginificant over sight. Just as federal highways.
Cappy
I am not too sure about that. The intercostal waterway and other navigatabe waterways are not subject to the whelms of the locals elected or not without siginificant over sight. Just as federal highways.
psneeld
Guru
Here's a familiar sight to ACIW travelers...some tidbits too...
Holden Beach wants Brunswick to clean up waterway | StarNewsOnline.com
State and locals do have jurisdiction on the ICW (concurrent with the Feds)...the USCG regulates things like bridge openings but locals can ask for restrictions to "open on demand", the ACOE has input into things that would affect maintaining the channel.
I'm sure there are plenty of other federal agencies that have concurrent jurisdiction and only have control over locals when the locals/states impact their mission statement for the ICW.
The no wake buoys are clear indicators there is ultimately local/state control at some level.
Holden Beach wants Brunswick to clean up waterway | StarNewsOnline.com
State and locals do have jurisdiction on the ICW (concurrent with the Feds)...the USCG regulates things like bridge openings but locals can ask for restrictions to "open on demand", the ACOE has input into things that would affect maintaining the channel.
I'm sure there are plenty of other federal agencies that have concurrent jurisdiction and only have control over locals when the locals/states impact their mission statement for the ICW.
The no wake buoys are clear indicators there is ultimately local/state control at some level.
Bay Pelican
Moderator Emeritus
A combination of the Interstate Commerce Clause in the US constitution and the navigable waters decisions give exclusive jurisdiction to the US federal government. Where it becomes tricky is with respect to liveaboards and mooring fields, in both cases I believe the feds have delegated some power to regulate to the state and local authorities.
Alaskan Sea-Duction
Guru
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2012
- Messages
- 8,056
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Alaskan Sea-Duction
- Vessel Make
- 1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
Tow the abandon boats out and let the USCG use them for target practice!
That can't be done any more without removing any hazardous materials. It's not cheap.
