Florida anchorage restrictions

Alaskan Sea-Duction said:

Well it would appear the bill has clear the state Senate and is on the Governor's desk for signature. I guess the Florida legislature and its Governor is for sale.....

Click to expand...

So, anytime a law passes you oppose, it means the legislature and Governor were paid? It doesn't cross your mind for one moment that they might have actually thought it was a good law?

I opposed this bill, but I'm not going to make statements as to the character and integrity of those who supported it.

dhays said:

Hm... I will never boat in that area, but if I did, I think that I would be tempted to just anchor normally with my usual high degree of courtesy.

Somehow, I can't see a LEO coming out to where I am anchored in the evening, night, or early morning to write me a ticket. If they did (and I wasn't a Florida resident) I am not sure that I would be all that inclined to actually pay the fine.

Getting a legislature to pass a law is one thing. Getting overburdened LEOs to actually enforce it is another.

Click to expand...

Actually what I suspect an LEO would do would be to advise you of the law and ask you to move 100 yards away into Biscayne Bay and anchor or 100 yards south and do so, but just vacate the area between the islands and by the causeway.

RT Firefly said:

Mr. dh. "...my usual high degree of courtesy." Fair enough but how would you respond to an irate home owner verbally assaulting you for "ruining" their view and and anchoring in "their" water? I think you would be talking to an overburdened LEO in fairly short order.

Click to expand...

Well, I am not so sure.

Say you are a typical city or county LEO. Your wage isn't all that high and you have to deal with "difficult" people all day. You are running from domestic violence calls, burglaries, car prowls etc all day long. How quick do you think you would be to respond to an irate and rude rich ass homeowner who is complaining about their view being spoiled that boat that is anchored for the evening in the waterway in front of their home? Unless they happen to be the Mayor or a member of the City Council, I can easily see more pressing calls getting the priority.

Of course, maybe the LEOs in the South East are different from the ones that I know here.

BandB said:

Actually what I suspect an LEO would do would be to advise you of the law and ask you to move 100 yards away into Biscayne Bay and anchor or 100 yards south and do so, but just vacate the area between the islands and by the causeway.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think you are probably right and I would comply quickly and very politely in that situation.

dhays said:

Well, I am not so sure.

Say you are a typical city or county LEO. Your wage isn't all that high and you have to deal with "difficult" people all day. You are running from domestic violence calls, burglaries, car prowls etc all day long. How quick do you think you would be to respond to an irate and rude rich ass homeowner who is complaining about their view being spoiled that boat that is anchored for the evening in the waterway in front of their home? Unless they happen to be the Mayor or a member of the City Council, I can easily see more pressing calls getting the priority.

Of course, maybe the LEOs in the South East are different from the ones that I know here.

Click to expand...

A very sizable percentage of calls a policeman goes on are nuisance calls, neighbors complaining about neighbors and over very minor situations. Then on top they have shoplifting and disturbance causing.

dhays said:

It just seems to me that by solving the derelict boat issue it would go a long way to solving a lot of problems for everyone.

Click to expand...

It's not just the derelict boats. The worst of the lot are drunken bums with alcohol and/or drug issues. Those who flaunt the laws (anchor lights, registration aka taxes or fees, sanitation, safety like fire extinguishers, etc.) -- those guys are a menace.

They live outside society and are driven by inner demons. Those 2% are the reason shoreside folks get "unreasonable" -- I doggone sure would not want an anchorage full of unmovable boats with bums aboard near me.

Not bringing their refuse ashore or worse, tossing it overboard. Standing on deck to pee in broad daylight. Really!?!?

Turning on a landowner's water and refilling jugs from the tap they pay for, especially when the sneak-ashore's don't shut off the water when the containers are full. And yes, any number of property owners on Sister's Creek in Marathon will attest that was a problem at least in the 1970's and it got really bad in the 80's.

The preponderance of boats has increased exponentially. It's not getting any better.

The Problem as I see it is the laws call for fines. Well, a guy living social security check to SS check isn't going to pay just because there is no consequence for not doing so.

If you don't pay there's an added fee. Well, a guy on the margins of society doesn't have the $183 for a fine for not showing an anchor light. He's not going to have more penalties and interest either.

Besides, he has nothing. What can anyone do to him? Nothing.

The boat is most likely not in his name so he cares not. The bum might have "bought " it, but registering costs money. It won't have been done. Previous owner has no clue the boat is still Officially his.

And if the boat has an anchor light the next time drunk needed a bottle of Vodka that light would be gone. Or there's no battery in the boat to supply power...

Consequences beyond unpaid fines is Part One of the solution.

RT Firefly said:

Further, set a time limit for anchoring in one spot and enforce it through fines (parking tickets).

Click to expand...

This is most reasonable. In BLM lands (Bureau of Land Management, aka the national forests) you may boondock (anchor, on land) for up to 14 days at a time. Then you must move your location at least 25 miles to a new spot.

To me, that seems reasonable.

Two weeks is reasonable for waiting for a hop over to the islands. Waiting for a weather window for a couple of weeks is not unheard of. As for permanently establishing residence right off my house were I to have one, NO.

Move your boat. The question in my mind is how far is "enough" ... a mile might be okay.

Were you to wonder while I believe a mile is sufficient, this is the reason: If a guy on a boat has a job ashore, rowing 1/2 mile each day to and from the boat is not unreasonable. I don't know that I would want to row a mile each way...

Anyway, it's too late now. The law has passed. Enforcement will happen, especially in those areas where the most vocal opponents to anchoring boats were. Such is life.

It's not all about me.

BandB said:

A question for the group.

Let's assume we're talking a canal or other area with houses and docks on both sides. Depth a MLW is 9' with 2' tide. This is also a canal that boats must transit to get in and out to homes. What is the minimum distance between the docks on either side that needs to exist to "allow" anchoring of a 50' boat, and of a 100' boat?

I'm not necessarily speaking by law but just common sense and decency.

Click to expand...

If in 9' of water one uses 45' of rode, then the diameter of the swing of a 50' boat would be about 160'. Allowing for anchor slippage and also allowing other boats to pass I would say the canal needs to be at least 200' wide. Note the canals as part of this bill are about 240' after accounting for docks and docked boats. Now if that was a 100' boat then I'd say the canal would need to be 300'.

An interesting topic brought to mind, partly by RTF's post and the mention of anchoring parallel. That is anchoring bow and stern. It certainly reduces the area the boat requires and frees more passageway. Most crowded anchorages scare me a bit with the closeness with which many boats anchor to each other, forgetting about whether close to shore or not.

I would love to talk to some of the more reasonable homeowners in the areas covered by this law and find out what really happened to precipitate the group pushing so hard for this law. I suspect some members of the anchoring community acted in such a way as to bring it on themselves and that's a shame for all those who anchor and are good citizens. Now there's a least one of the homeowners who had to be warned more than once by the police to stop his verbal assaults.

I think one thing that makes this difficult to understand is that most everyone here is a "good citizen anchor-er" and respects others, both anchored and on land. At the same time at least a few of us own waterfront homes and we've never yelled at a boat-owner who anchored, never tried to get anyone moved. So, it's difficult for us to understand what led to all the uproar and consternation.

dhays said:

Well, I am not so sure.

Say you are a typical city or county LEO. Your wage isn't all that high and you have to deal with "difficult" people all day. You are running from domestic violence calls, burglaries, car prowls etc all day long. How quick do you think you would be to respond to an irate and rude rich ass homeowner who is complaining about their view being spoiled that boat that is anchored for the evening in the waterway in front of their home? Unless they happen to be the Mayor or a member of the City Council, I can easily see more pressing calls getting the priority.

Of course, maybe the LEOs in the South East are different from the ones that I know here.

Click to expand...

Not sure about South Florida any more...but in many places I have worked with them, water LEOs are not land LEOs. While I am sure they get their share of "bozos" all day long...most water cops are of a different temperament.

I agree that the vast majority will be very polite to all but troublemakers...and for typical transients in cruising boats...they know we are not the problem for dang near anything. My guess is they will ask you to move at most...may even say wait till light...unless they are being specifically told to move you or the city is going on a fine collection fee spree. I have read about Miami Beach seawall offenders being ticketed in a heartbeat...but have no actual knowledge of what is happening there.

Janice I agree much of the time it is the low lifes...either slovenly or drunk, rich or poor that wreck almost anywhere. But in the Miami water areas...for some of the wealthy wasterside landowners...ANY vessel is a nuisance in their eyes...mega yachts even.

I see those two issues as pretty easy to solve...the bozo water wreckers are usually breaking all sorts of laws...enforce them until the problem boater says uncle...and for the wealthy landowner well...give in to their unreasonable demands and pass these laws or ignore them. Really not all that complicated for me.

janice142 said:

The Problem as I see it is the laws call for fines. Well, a guy living social security check to SS check isn't going to pay just because there is no consequence for not doing so.

If you don't pay there's an added fee. Well, a guy on the margins of society doesn't have the $183 for a fine for not showing an anchor light. He's not going to have more penalties and interest either.

Besides, he has nothing. What can anyone do to him? Nothing.

Click to expand...

Actually they will have a warrant issued for failure to show, just like happens when someone doesn't pay a traffic ticket. At some point in their life they get stopped or in this case cited but the outstanding warrants come up and they do get hauled in. Typically it's just for one night or so in jail and another date is established, which they again likely miss.

Unfortunately, the derelict boat law that is in the legislature and could be close to passage is just as weak, Janice. It starts with the exact same schedule of fines.

BandB said:

Actually they will have a warrant issued for failure to show, just like happens when someone doesn't pay a traffic ticket. At some point in their life they get stopped or in this case cited but the outstanding warrants come up and they do get hauled in. Typically it's just for one night or so in jail and another date is established, which they again likely miss.

Unfortunately, the derelict boat law that is in the legislature and could be close to passage is just as weak, Janice. It starts with the exact same schedule of fines.

Click to expand...

You're right. What's a week in The Grey Bar Inn where three squares a day are provided. And hot showers. I mean really, it's not so bad to some and even a step up over what they have at present.

Fines won't solve this problem.

Impounding works for cars doesn't it? Is there a reason it would not work for boats?

for some...put them in a program (better solution) or in jail long enough and the boat becomes a derelict....and usually can be taken more easily..but the process may take longer.

janice142 said:

You're right. What's a week in The Grey Bar Inn where three squares a day are provided. And hot showers. I mean really, it's not so bad to some and even a step up over what they have at present.

Fines won't solve this problem.

Impounding works for cars doesn't it? Is there a reason it would not work for boats?

Click to expand...

No reason it wouldn't work at some point in the process. Just the cost of impounding is much different for a boat and you need an impound lot as well as a legal procedure for those that don't get claimed.

dhays said:

Well, I am not so sure.

Say you are a typical city or county LEO. Your wage isn't all that high and you have to deal with "difficult" people all day. You are running from domestic violence calls, burglaries, car prowls etc all day long. How quick do you think you would be to respond to an irate and rude rich ass homeowner who is complaining about their view being spoiled that boat that is anchored for the evening in the waterway in front of their home? Unless they happen to be the Mayor or a member of the City Council, I can easily see more pressing calls getting the priority.

Of course, maybe the LEOs in the South East are different from the ones that I know here.

Click to expand...

It won't be the city or county beat and patrol LEOs - it will be either the FWC or sheriff marine patrol.

menzies said:

It won't be the city or county beat and patrol LEOs - it will be either the FWC or sheriff marine patrol.

Click to expand...

Far more likely to be the city as they're the ones who have to deal with the locals. I would think perhaps the Miami Beach Marine Patrol on these specific locations. I don't know how quickly or how much FWC will jump on it since they opposed the bill.

Maybe they could send Parking Enforcement Officers (once known as meter maids), out to do it.

dhays said:

.......... (and I wasn't a Florida resident) I am not sure that I would be all that inclined to actually pay the fine..........

Click to expand...

You might find that you can't renew your driver's license in your home state or worse, it will be suspended and you won't know it and be driving on a suspended license. Computers have allowed the states to easily cooperate with each other on things like this.

Pay the fine, then bitch on the Internet and call for a boycott of Florida like everyone else does.

BandB said:

So, anytime a law passes you oppose, it means the legislature and Governor were paid? It doesn't cross your mind for one moment that they might have actually thought it was a good law?

I opposed this bill, but I'm not going to make statements as to the character and integrity of those who supported it.

Click to expand...

I would agree if the new law was for the people of Florida as a whole. In this case it would appear a few wealthy waterfront property owners lobbied with their pocketbooks to remove valid anchorages, with the representatives stating it is a safety issue. Guaranteed, this law sets a dangerous precedent and more restrictions are coming......more are coming.

Mule said:

A diver, sharp knife or cable cutters could have fun with this guy. He deserves as much. One obsesser meets another. This guy is legend here in FL. Danger to others is of concern though in setting them free.

Click to expand...

I wonder why this has not already been done.

WesK said:

I wonder why this has not already been done.

Click to expand...

Because while many folks may fantasize about doing it, most will decide in the end that they don't want to resort to vandalism.

Every city and most neighborhoods have one person like that. Nearly every HOA has at least one. Sometimes because they're so aggressive they gain some power. In our neighborhood, the HOA is voluntary but I heard stories about one guy who was very much into it years ago. He did some good things but then he'd do things without anyone else's approval. For instance he changed the color of all the bridges. There are 6.

In the area I lived as a teen in Charlotte NC, there was one guy who appeared at every city council meeting, always speaking. They would give him two minutes on any topic he asked for time on. The councilpersons would use that as a time to take bathroom breaks or refresh their coffee or grab a snack. At two minutes his time was up. He was always making the newspaper protesting something that was ruining the neighborhood. I remember once it was a large grocery store that wasn't in keeping with the neighborhood spirit. He was so happy when the store failed, fought another store coming in, rejoiced when it failed, fought the next one and finally one succeeded.

It's like Condo Commandos. They have all this time and nothing else to do. They retired, they're bored, and they care about things no one else does.

Yacht clubs often have the same. Most members just want to enjoy but one member wants to regulate everything that is done. There is one club south of us about 75 nm that has some members who are upset with all guests who are allowed to visit. They don't like any of the social memberships, feel that only homeowners should be members. Sometimes it's fun just to taunt them. They love to be the clothing police. So, the girls know the rules and wear things that are just barely within their rules. The tennis courts just say appropriate tennis attire, so who is to say what. Croquet says white. Then the pool says no thongs but doesn't say how little bikini can be worn.

All shirts must have sleeves. So that's a challenge to girls who like to press the rules. Says nothing about shirts with sleeves but with shoulder cut outs. Now this one old man and his wife will actually walk up and challenge girls.

This same couple checks out every visitor that pulls into the marina. Do not like transient at all.

Every city, every neighborhood. We're so lucky to have a 100% voluntary HOA with fees voluntary as is everything else. Money is needed for something beyond what is available and a few people just pitch in. There are just a few very small patches of community property and volunteers plant and maintain them. The ones doing it decide what the flowers will be.

BandB said:

You're right in that the homeowner can't ban anything. However, the state has the "deed" (not actually a deed but the ownership) of the land in which we're talking about placing the anchors. And the state has the rights and the responsibilities to regulate the use in the way best for it's residents and constituents. So, as to rights, they can ban anchoring anywhere they want and the residents can try to get them to do so.

This also means that the municipalities don't have rights to regulate anchoring unless they are given those rights by the state.

As a homeowner, I don't have the deed to my neighbor's property. However, what he can do on his property is highly regulated. That includes docks he can build. Generally there is a setback on the sides of his property as far as any construction. Also, it includes how he uses the property. The properties in many areas can't be used for operating a business to which clients or customers come or employees.

The homeowner and the boater can go to the state and ask for any rights they want to.

Now, I compare the homeowner who wants no anchoring or wants anchoring not allowed within 300' or his property to the homeowner who doesn't want anyone to be allowed to build a house on the adjacent three properties. Yes, I have seen homeowners fight a developer deciding to finally build on some vacant land.

The state has the responsibility to serve all involved parties. Derelict vessels is an area that adversely impacts both homeowner and boater so no one except owners of derelict vessels has a problem with them. Anchoring is controversial. There is a solution. Doing it with piece meal legislation for three areas isn't in my opinion that solution.

At some point, the state of Florida will pass some form of regulations limiting local governments and giving them specific rules they can use for anchoring. Probably the maximum restrictions allowed. Or the state will less likely just pass a law with statewide anchoring rules.

As I said, I think the 300' suggested was crazy and ridiculous. However, boaters who want no rules and no restrictions are ultimately even less likely to win their way. In fact, the only way the extremists homeowners can win is by those who anchor refusing to compromise in any way.

If I had the power I probably would handle it like most compromises I handled in business. I'd sit both sides down in a room and say you're staying here until you reach an agreement. Then I'd say, write a rule stating what the maximum limitations municipalities can put on anchoring are. As a starting place it's greater than 1' from a homeowner's dock, and it's less than 300'. Call me when you're ready with the solution.

Unfortunately we'll battle over this for years with hardliners in both directions dominating the conversations.

I've never encountered a problem from a boater or a homeowner. Guess I've only been around those who use common sense. However, I've heard of stories from both sides that are the reason regulations are required. I've heard of the homeowner who couldn't get out from his own dock without some anchored boats moving and many of them had no one aboard to move them. I've also heard of the boat anchored as the sole boat in a cove surrounded by farm property with one house way up on the hill and the homeowner came out yelling at them to move and carrying a shotgun. Guess I've been lucky to avoid the crazies.

Click to expand...

They are called waters of the state.

http://www.aswm.org/pdf_lib/ecos_feb_2009_definitions_of_waters_of_the_state.pdf

Concerning anchoring in canals that would restrict navigation, personally I've never seen it. I didn't say it doesn't happen.

Sunset Lake, one of the anchorages in FL that apparently now is restricted, has narrow canals leading to an open area large enough for several boats to anchor.

There are bums on the water just like on land. Some will pee off their boats in open view and some will flaunt any common sense law. There are also others who boat and anchor responsibility. Knowing the contentious anchoring issue brought by the homeowner on Sunset Lake, before we left that anchorage, my wife and I scooped up several bags of trash brought in by the tide from our dinghy before we left. Yes we did it for show in hopes the adjacent landowners would see that some boaters have respect for their view and property.

While going out of the way to show that you are a good guy....you know it is lost on the few that are causing the problems for boaters.

No good deed goes unpunished...you know that...

In every walk of life there is the 10% rule...at the top and/or bottom of issue.

Alaskan Sea-Duction said:

I would agree if the new law was for the people of Florida as a whole. In this case it would appear a few wealthy waterfront property owners lobbied with their pocketbooks to remove valid anchorages, with the representatives stating it is a safety issue. Guaranteed, this law sets a dangerous precedent and more restrictions are coming......more are coming.

Click to expand...

It is more, far more than a few wealthy waterfront owners that object to derelicts, winter squatters and ugly sailboats littering the waterways. To characterize it this way will doom any hope of rational anchoring privileges being implemented.

FL is a state with a very large population that lives and plays near and on the water. Marina owners and operators cater to this reality. They support their moorage and repair facilities with lobbying efforts for their clients. Clients who spend tens of thousands per year, not a few hundred.

Who is there to support the intinerant boaters that flood into FL every winter and the live aboards that do not use the marinas as their home base? BoatUS of course to justify their existence but this effort largely represents non voters and non taxpayers. But who else? This is the dilemma. Without a strong and sensible bloc of FL voters supporting anchoring rights for non voters and out of state boating itinerants, this issue will follow a well understood path.

FL is not unique in objecting to the derelicts and pollution caused by near shore boating activities. Every coastal and inland state I have boated in has implemented some sort of rules and limitations on dumping, derelicts, dockage, painting, anchoring, fueling, taxation and behavior. BC and Ontario as well.

Quite honestly I'm in agreement with most but not all of this public intervention to clean up the waterways, no matter where on this planet. With friends and relatives enjoying and living in and around FL waters I've had the opportunity to enjoy the state. But as with all very dense population locales, the few will have their perceived rights trod upon. Especially out of staters.

Of course, in a few decades, most of those "wealthy waterfront homeowners" will have to move anyway since their front porches will be awash.

dhays said:

Of course, in a few decades, most of those "wealthy waterfront homeowners" will have to move anyway since their front porches will be awash.

Click to expand...

Then they will want a bunch of derelict boats out front as breakwaters....

Greetings,
Mr. s. Pretty good summary.

The Middle River anchorage in Ft. Lauderdale is one of the few good anchorages in the area. There is good access to shopping via the public park. If they wanted to regulate the number and length of stay of boats they could have put in a mooring field run by the Los Olas Docks (a city owned facility) like the ones just South of the bridge. Everyone may not want to stay at a marina. There are powerful lobbies behind this legislation.

Back in our cruising days, early 2000s, we occasionally anchored in what we called the Venetian Causeway anchorage. Generally in an area with no boat traffic, kind of a dead end. One time there in the evening some sort of water police came by. The officer was almost apologetic, but one of the home owners had complained about us being there and he asked us to please move the next morning. He told us there really was no problem but that the homeowner was actually watching to make sure he stopped by. So the next morning we moved to a more open area with some boat traffic going by so it was a little more bumpy. We liked that area because there is a small canal off to one side which goes right by a Publix. Somebody had even tied a cable between two trees to tie the dinghy to.

On the other hand we anchored somewhere in Maine just off a wide part pf a river because we couldn't get into the anchorage we had aimed for due to the entrance being completely blocked by lobster pots. Shortly after the anchor went down we saw a small boat coming towards us from one of the houses on the waterfront. We thought for sure he would ask us to leave. But he came by to ask where we were from, where we were going and then offered us the use of their shower at the house.

Takes all kinds. Unfortunately going anywhere from TX, FL is kind of hard to avoid, but we do our best.

I agree with some of what you state Sunchaser. I can see where this could benefit the marinas as folks who used to anchor legally are now forced into these marina. This is good for the marinas as they will make money and the waterfront homeowners will not have to put up with ugly cruisers in their line of sight. I totally agree with navigation hazards in narrow channels.

sunchaser said:

It is more, far more than a few wealthy waterfront owners that object to derelicts, winter squatters and ugly sailboats littering the waterways. To characterize it this way will doom any hope of rational anchoring privileges being implemented.

Click to expand...

This bill didn't squeak through the legislature. It passed by an overwhelming majority in spite of strong lobbying against it.

What Sunchaser has said is the same thing I've been preaching and that is if those who anchor and want anchoring privileges don't develop and propose some rational compromise at some point then more extreme provisions will be implemented.

The group in favor of zero anchoring will not win. However, the group that continues to campaign and push for zero anchoring restrictions stands no chance of getting their way either. There are quite a few boating organizations and groups that strongly oppose every anchoring bill but to this point haven't to my knowledge made a single proposal of their own. They continue to push all their readers and boaters they can reach to send in form letters and/or sign petitions. Those are sent to legislature members who see them as very special interest, see many of them representing non-Floridians and see them as simply mass mailings but not independent individual ideas or opinions.

I would strongly suggest to all these groups that they prepare to make a pre-emptive strike. They need to between now and the time the pilot project ends develop and present a proposal for the state that the majority can live with. Don't force the legislature to select between no restrictions and harsh restrictions. If you do, they'll pick harsh.

My suggestion would be this.

1. Go back to the legislature with a more serious derelict boat bill that empowers and funds the removal or impounding of at risk vessels. Make it clear that as responsible anchorers and boaters you're just as concerned about derelict vessels as is the homeowner.

2. Support the pilot projects and try to form an objective opinion and analysis of their good points and bad and what we've learned from them. Make suggestions for improvement, but do it on the basis of actual experiences.

3. Draft and propose a statewide bill to cover anchoring. This totally separate from derelict. In this bill provide the ability for local municipalities to set up restricted anchorages but provide very specific limits to the maximum restrictions. Come up with a reasonable and fair proposal. If you don't want 300', then include a number you can live with. 0 is not an option.

4. Propose a bill that will provide for the addition of anchorages and mooring fields throughout the state with access to shore and other amenities. Where I live, there are many anchorages near. Now I'm sure they all have some shortcomings but I don't use them so I can't judge that. And if you want to get these passed then present information on the financial benefit. Present reasonable charges for services and amenities available.

I'll address Sunset Bay a moment since it came up in discussion and is an area covered by the recent bill. I believe the one man would have objected to anything. However, I don't believe his voice is what carried the day. I think the fact there was no time limit, no limit to how close to homes or docks, no policing of the sanitation systems of the boats, no limit to how many boats could anchor in that small area, no facilities available to keep those anchoring from taking their dinghies to private homeowners' property, and some poor behavior on the part of some anchoring there is what led to this.

As to any suggestion marinas were in support of this legislation, I don't know of a single marina that supported it.