Florida anchoring issues

[Canuck Sailor]

Florida now has five bills - three in the Senate, two in the house, which if passed will completely eliminate overnight anchoring in Florida. These bills cover every east coast anchorage either directly, or permit a local municipality to create local ordinances affecting them. This was a situation which we all fought to end with the passage of 327.60(2)(f) which forbade local ordinances.
If you enjoy cruising in Florida, or plan on it, you need to speak up now, before it's too late. For more information and to learn how you can lodge your protest, you can go to Log into Facebook You can also find more information at 2025 Legislative Disasters are Coming at You! – Cruisers Rights Network of North America, including a copy of "Anchoring a Solution", a white paper on Florida anchoring which offers workable solutions to the problems.
If you are a member of the MTOA or other cruising group, insist that your group get involved immediately to fight these bills. To follow is an outline of what just one of these bills proposes.

"The Florida anchoring fight has never been so fraught. On Feb. 6 and Feb. 10, two bills were filed – SB 594 and HB 481. Another, SB 641 was filed on Feb. 14. Between the three bills, anchoring overnight in Florida could become completely illegal.
In brief, the Senate bill SB 549 mandates a 5000 foot no anchoring zone around any Florida seaport that wants one. This would eliminate the entire Palm Beach anchorage at Peanut Island and to the south of the inlet – hundreds of local boats, plus transients. It could also include the seaports of Port Canaveral, Port Everglades, Port of Fernandina, Port of Fort Pierce, Port of Jacksonville, Port of Key West, Port Manatee, Port of Miami, Port Panama City, Port of Pensacola, Port St. Joe, Port of St. Petersburg and Port Tampa Bay.
HB 481 limits anchoring for more than 30 days in any area with a population of over 1.5 million.
This bill will make it illegal to anchor for more than 30 days out of six months in any county with more than 1.5 million people. That means that if you live in Miami-Dade, Broward, Hillsborough County or Palm Beach, your right to anchor is about to be removed from you.
Anyone care to bet that next year or the year after, they move the threshold down to one million people?
When that happens – note I said when, not if – you can add the following counties to the list: Orange, Duval and Pinellas County."

 

[more]

i wish you good luck.

 

[mvweebles]

Florida now has five bills - three in the Senate, two in the house, which if passed will completely eliminate overnight anchoring in Florida. These bills cover every east coast anchorage either directly, or permit a local municipality to create local ordinances affecting them. This was a situation which we all fought to end with the passage of 327.60(2)(f) which forbade local ordinances.
If you enjoy cruising in Florida, or plan on it, you need to speak up now, before it's too late. For more information and to learn how you can lodge your protest, you can go to Log into Facebook You can also find more information at 2025 Legislative Disasters are Coming at You! – Cruisers Rights Network of North America, including a copy of "Anchoring a Solution", a white paper on Florida anchoring which offers workable solutions to the problems.
If you are a member of the MTOA or other cruising group, insist that your group get involved immediately to fight these bills. To follow is an outline of what just one of these bills proposes.

"The Florida anchoring fight has never been so fraught. On Feb. 6 and Feb. 10, two bills were filed – SB 594 and HB 481. Another, SB 641 was filed on Feb. 14. Between the three bills, anchoring overnight in Florida could become completely illegal.
In brief, the Senate bill SB 549 mandates a 5000 foot no anchoring zone around any Florida seaport that wants one. This would eliminate the entire Palm Beach anchorage at Peanut Island and to the south of the inlet – hundreds of local boats, plus transients. It could also include the seaports of Port Canaveral, Port Everglades, Port of Fernandina, Port of Fort Pierce, Port of Jacksonville, Port of Key West, Port Manatee, Port of Miami, Port Panama City, Port of Pensacola, Port St. Joe, Port of St. Petersburg and Port Tampa Bay.
HB 481 limits anchoring for more than 30 days in any area with a population of over 1.5 million.
This bill will make it illegal to anchor for more than 30 days out of six months in any county with more than 1.5 million people. That means that if you live in Miami-Dade, Broward, Hillsborough County or Palm Beach, your right to anchor is about to be removed from you.
Anyone care to bet that next year or the year after, they move the threshold down to one million people?
When that happens – note I said when, not if – you can add the following counties to the list: Orange, Duval and Pinellas County."

This is a red herring to protect liveaboard anchor outs and derelict boats by somehow calling them legitimate cruisers.

@Canuck Sailor is a well known agitator who has no helpful suggestions on how to balance resources in large metro areas. He believes any boat should be able to anchor anywhere for any period of time and sees no difference between legitimate transient cruisers and full time liveaboard boats who are essentially permanently anchored.

A Canadian citizen, the OP has a long history of white washing the issue of liveaboard anchor outs under the cloak of legitimate cruisers. These bills seek to reduce issues related to derelict liveaboard boats who skirt local ordinances and perpetually wash ashore during storms causing taxpayers to foot the bill for thousands of dollars in damage. As a taxpayer in one of the counties he cited, it pisses me off.

I encourage folks to actually read the legislation cited in his post - it does not support the premise that cruising in Florida is at risk. Much the opposite - these bills seek to expand anchoring for legitimate cruisers while placing reasonable limits on anchoring (such as prohibiting anchoring in commercial ports). While I respect his his preference for derelict anchorages, virtually all cruisers I know find them to be eyesores and shudder at being lumped into the cohort of liveaboard anchor outs who's boats are no longer navigable.

Finally, note that BoatUS no longer opposes this type of legislation. They recognize live board anchorouts are a problem for communities and are not representative of recreational boaters. BoatUS now works with legislators to craft laws such as those cited by the OP.

Peter

 

[boomerang]

Peter, I was up in the middle of the night and read Canuck Sailers post. I instantly knew what his motivation was and it rubbed me wrong. I crafted a hot-headed reply but ultimately decided to not post it and wait for an rational post like yours to show up first.
I don't have a problem with common-sense time limits on anchoring. I haven't read the proposal but the copied/pasted post has a lot of hypotheticals in it.
It's a United States issue and being a Canadian boater, he doesn't have a dog in this fight anyway.

 

[psneeld]

Thank you Peter.

I did know about the OP's past activities... but the post does smack of what I have heard for many years now.

I'm not cruising these days, but day boating/fishing out of Ft Pierce all year now and every boating person I know can't believe the number of seemingly permanent or at least long duration anchored boats all over the Port of Ft Pierce area. Many are in super disrepair with blown out sails or no sails at all or power vessels that are hardly recognizable as vessels at all. They have clutter and modifications to their house and while it may not be known, many could be destined to be derelicts, following the ones that blew ashore in last Fall's hurricanes.

I would bet even money that many are not following marine sanitation laws and are now a density to affect the swimming areas not far from the prominent anchoring areas.

As long as true cruisers are looking for decent destinations, there will be conflicts with other boaters with a lifestyle that connects them more permanently to a particular spot.

While I don't support 100% of the proposed legislation in the OP, there are plenty of better ideas out there to eliminate what many see as the issue as long as one clearly defines true cruiser versus "resident or seasonal resident boater".

 

[Canuck Sailor]

Peter, I was up in the middle of the night and read Canuck Sailers post. I instantly knew what his motivation was and it rubbed me wrong. I crafted a hot-headed reply but ultimately decided to not post it and wait for an rational post like yours to show up first.
I don't have a problem with common-sense time limits on anchoring. I haven't read the proposal but the copied/pasted post has a lot of hypotheticals in it.
It's a United States issue and being a Canadian boater, he doesn't have a dog in this fight anyway.

I spend winters on my boat in the south - Florida or the Bahamas. So tell me again why I don't have a dog in this hunt....

 

[mvweebles]

.....While I don't support 100% of the proposed legislation in the OP, there are plenty of better ideas out there to eliminate what many see as the issue as long as one clearly defines true cruiser versus "resident or seasonal resident boater".

There have been dozens of ideas tried, many common sense ones. You'd think it would be fairly straightforward. But there always seems to be a fly in the ointment that allows a motivated squatter to slip through the cracks by leveraging technicalities in language or definitions. The intent is always clear: take as little as you need, not as much as you can get away with. But that's not what happens - folks like the OP take delight in exploiting technicalities for their own end without concern for the broader community. It's an entitlement ethos that is rare in boating.

At its core, this is an affordable housing problem. While I am very sympathetic to the homelessness issue, I resent the attempts to get me to affiliate with it because I love boating. I love camping too but do not support allowing homeless to pitch tents on city streets. At least they don't try to normalize their activities with pleas to REI and Sierra Club members.

What's ironic claims of persecution are the cause of the restrictions. "They are coming for us.....they will come for you too!" Nobody is bothered by cruisers - no one would have come for them had it not been for selfish people who want unfettered access to public resources make it clear reasonable expectations need defined legal boundaries.

In the end, is be less pugnacious if this were a discussion about homelessness or affordable housing and the solutions didn't involve treading on the public. Just don't call it cruiser rights.

Peter[

 

[Canuck Sailor]

This is a red herring to protect liveaboard anchor outs and derelict boats by somehow calling them legitimate cruisers.

@Canuck Sailor is a well known agitator who has no helpful suggestions on how to balance resources in large metro areas. He believes any boat should be able to anchor anywhere for any period of time and sees no difference between legitimate transient cruisers and full time liveaboard boats who are essentially permanently anchored.

A Canadian citizen, the OP has a long history of white washing the issue of liveaboard anchor outs under the cloak of legitimate cruisers. These bills seek to reduce issues related to derelict liveaboard boats who skirt local ordinances and perpetually wash ashore during storms causing taxpayers to foot the bill for thousands of dollars in damage. As a taxpayer in one of the counties he cited, it pisses me off.

I encourage folks to actually read the legislation cited in his post - it does not support the premise that cruising in Florida is at risk. Much the opposite - these bills seek to expand anchoring for legitimate cruisers while placing reasonable limits on anchoring (such as prohibiting anchoring in commercial ports). While I respect his his preference for derelict anchorages, virtually all cruisers I know find them to be eyesores and shudder at being lumped into the cohort of liveaboard anchor outs who's boats are no longer navigable.

Finally, note that BoatUS no longer opposes this type of legislation. They recognize live board anchorouts are a problem for communities and are not representative of recreational boaters. BoatUS now works with legislators to craft laws such as those cited by the OP.

Peter

Perhaps if you were more up to date on what is actually happening, your post wouldn't reek of misinformation. You don't even own a boat from what I see.
First of all - IF you bothered to read my white paper, you'd see that my position on derelicts and anchor outs is NOT what you claimed.
Second, IF you read the three bills HB 481, SB 164 and SB 594 (the two companion bills are identical), you'd understand that the bills present an honest threat to all cruisers.
For example, the redefinition of "long term anchoring" with a two week anchoring limitation in SB 164. Many boaters wait three and four weeks at anchor for a mooring ball in popular areas like St. Augustine or Marathon, or Stuart. Others wanting to cross to the Bahamas anwhere from Palm Beach south can, and have waited as long as a month for a weather break.
Those vessels will now require a permit to do so if this law should pass.
Perhaps, instead of uninformed commentary, you might actually try to understand the situation that faces people who actually own boats and cruise them in Florida.

 

[Canuck Sailor]

There have been dozens of ideas tried, many common sense ones. You'd think it would be fairly straightforward. But there always seems to be a fly in the ointment that allows a motivated squatter to slip through the cracks by leveraging technicalities in language or definitions. The intent is always clear: take as little as you need, not as much as you can get away with. It's part of an entitlement ethos that is rare in boating.

At its core, this is an affordable housing problem. While I am very sympathetic to the homelessness issue, I resent the attempts to get me to affiliate with it because I love boating. I love camping too but do not support allowing homeless to pitch tents on city streets. At least they don't try to normalize their activities with pleas to REI and Sierra Club members.

What's ironic is efforts like these claims of these persecutions are the cause of the restrictions. "They are coming for us.....they will come for you too!" Nobody is bothered by cruisers - no one would have come for them had it not been for selfish people who want unfettered access to public resources make it clear reasonable expectations need defined legal boundaries.

In the end, is be less pugnacious if this were a discussion about homelessness or affordable housing and the solutions didn't involve treading on the public. Just don't call it cruiser rights.

Peter[/b]

If you want to read an informed discussion on solutions for these boaters, go here - 2025 Legislative Disasters are Coming at You! – Cruisers Rights Network of North America
Nah, never mind, you can't be bothered. I'll quote it for you...

Next, we have the liveaboards. Many, perhaps most of them, are either working Floridians or retirees who are trying to live within their means through living on a boat, or who simply prefer life afloat. As a general rule, their boats are well taken care of, and they don’t present problems to local authorities.

Then we have a small subgroup of liveaboards who present many of the actual problems. They typically fit one or more of the following descriptions: they have problems with substance abuse; mental health issues; are veterans and others with PTSD and/or money issues; are people dealing with poverty and homelessness; are people with a general distaste for authority. In the past few years, there has also developed a cohort of illegal immigrants living on boats.

The boats these people live aboard are often - not always - in rough shape if not outright legally derelict as defined in the Florida statutes. The boats are frequently incapable of navigation as defined in law, and that’s presuming the owner is even capable of operating the boat, which is not always the case.

Where issues of poverty, mental health issues or substance abuse are concerned, these can be people who have no idea how to operate a boat and are simply opting to live on a boat as opposed to living under a bridge in a cardboard box.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~At this point, I am going to digress from my overall discussion to address this last grouping. It needs to be recognized that these people are not boaters, and the problems they present should not be primarily dealt with as boating issues.

These are people who are living on boats as a last resort. The issues they present need to be addressed as the social welfare problem they are, not as boating problems. These people need to be provided with appropriate housing options, treatment for their substance abuse or physical and mental issues, and not policed as boaters violating boating regulations.

You can ticket them all you like, but the tickets will never be paid. You can force them to move on, but others will take their place. Desperation is a powerful motivator when the option is living in a cardboard box under a bridge.

There are many organizations, government and otherwise, that provide assistance for these same types of people living ashore. These organizations should be encouraged to look at those living aboard with the problems I’ve noted to see what supports can be provided for them.

This legislature would be acting both wisely and compassionately in reviewing this category of people living aboard boats, and finding solutions to help them. As a result of such efforts, a great many of the current anchoring “problems” will simultaneously disappear. Let me repeat that - As a result of such efforts, a great many of the current anchoring “problems” will simultaneously disappear.

There is also a “special case” subgroup here - veterans living aboard due to issues with poverty, PTSD or substance abuse. These are people who may often prefer living aboard, and not just as a solution to whatever demons they are dealing with, but because they legitimately like the lifestyle choice of living on the water.

There are organizations who deal with veterans who could help out here by recognizing this group. They are already familiar with the issues involved and have programs to work with these folks.

This could involve providing assistance in the rehabbing of the vessels themselves to bring them up to standard, providing used gear given as donations by other boaters where that is needed, to assisting them to move ashore if that is appropriate. It goes without saying that seeing to their mental and physical health and social concerns are the primary goals here.

Local and national boating groups could do a great deal of good here as well. Regardless of how the entire anchoring issue and this presentation is viewed, as a strong supporter of veterans I will consider my efforts to have been successful even if only this one aspect of the entire issue is dealt with.

 

[Canuck Sailor]

i wish you good luck.

thank you

 

[mvweebles]

...... You don't even own a boat from what I see......

You don't come here very often.....just to stir up trouble.

Peter

 

[O C Diver]

In brief, the Senate bill SB 549 mandates a 5000 foot no anchoring zone around any Florida seaport that wants one.

So any port that wants to exclude anchoring out to a mile can have a no anchoring zone. Those tourist seaports that want cruiser business can choose not to have the exclusion zone.

Seems pretty sensible to me. Seems pretty obvious that seaports should be able to exclude certain areas do to boat / ship traffic patterns and other possible problems.

This bill will make it illegal to anchor for more than 30 days out of six months in any county with more than 1.5 million people.

This is done now at Army Corps of Engineers campsites and docks (at locks). Basically your allowed to stay for no more than 2 weeks, and then you must move. This is done so that others may enjoy the extremely modestly priced facilities and prevent boats and campers from becoming permanent fixtures. Having a vessel anchored in the same location with occupants for 30 days is pretty much a guarantee of overboard discharge of holding tanks.

IMO, this is a very generous period of time. After 30 days, you're not cruising, you're now homesteading.

Ted

 

[psneeld]

Canuck Sailor

As far as not being up to date... have you heard of the massively, uninformed debate about the new legislation regarding "Florida Boating Safety Checks"?

Maybe that will free up the time of LEOs to roust the "problem" boaters and take the pressure off real cruisers like Peter discussed.

 

[Canuck Sailor]

This is a red herring to protect liveaboard anchor outs and derelict boats by somehow calling them legitimate cruisers.

@Canuck Sailor is a well known agitator who has no helpful suggestions on how to balance resources in large metro areas. He believes any boat should be able to anchor anywhere for any period of time and sees no difference between legitimate transient cruisers and full time liveaboard boats who are essentially permanently anchored.

A Canadian citizen, the OP has a long history of white washing the issue of liveaboard anchor outs under the cloak of legitimate cruisers. These bills seek to reduce issues related to derelict liveaboard boats who skirt local ordinances and perpetually wash ashore during storms causing taxpayers to foot the bill for thousands of dollars in damage. As a taxpayer in one of the counties he cited, it pisses me off.

I encourage folks to actually read the legislation cited in his post - it does not support the premise that cruising in Florida is at risk. Much the opposite - these bills seek to expand anchoring for legitimate cruisers while placing reasonable limits on anchoring (such as prohibiting anchoring in commercial ports). While I respect his his preference for derelict anchorages, virtually all cruisers I know find them to be eyesores and shudder at being lumped into the cohort of liveaboard anchor outs who's boats are no longer navigable.

Finally, note that BoatUS no longer opposes this type of legislation. They recognize live board anchorouts are a problem for communities and are not representative of recreational boaters. BoatUS now works with legislators to craft laws such as those cited by the OP.

Peter

I'm not quite sure where. start……First of all, IF you bothered to read and understand the bills at issue - HB 481, SB 954 and SB 164, you'd see the problems. The seaport bill covers all of the major seaports in Florida - over a dozen. If implemented, it will wipe out almost every viable anchorage in the state. Palm Beach is a decent example. The boats at anchor there do not conflict with the operation of the seaport in the least. The same applies to every other seaport in FL. In other words, there is NO need for this bill - unless you want to remove anchored out boats from in front of Sylvester Stallone's place, something he tried to get the local politicians to do recently.
The actual situation in Florida is that there are far more boats than slips available. In Biscayne Bay for example, there are at least 500 or more boats, some to 120 feet LOA, at anchor. Why? Because there are NO docks available. In January, 2024, I called every marina in Biscayne Bay. There were fewer than 10 available slips, and NO long term slips.
Some of the proposals in these bills will force hundreds of boats to move out of the county they are in every 30 days. Please, since you're so well informed, explain to us where those boats will go, when the next county over has the same problem.
But I'm the problem because I point out what's happening and how it will affect us?
You're entitled to your opinion, it's just a shame it's an uninformed one.

 

[Canuck Sailor]

Canuck Sailor

As far as not being up to date... have you heard of the massively, uninformed debate about the new legislation regarding "Florida Boating Safety Checks"?

Maybe that will free up the time of LEOs to roust the "problem" boaters and take the pressure off real cruisers like Peter discussed.

I've heard what DeSantis had to say - I haven't seen any substantive debate. And DeSantis said that the legislation would allow the FWC to get on with more important work than rousting boaters for safety checks.

 

[psneeld]

You don't come here very often.....just to stir up trouble.

Peter

Seems like someone else is misinformed about your being in the hunt and past observations of the problem.

Peter, if you and I wrote articles and white papers, then others might give us more credibility.

Obviously some don't think a decade or so of forum posts can show any meaningful level of knowledge or expertise. Well at least some may have it.

 

[psneeld]

I'm not quite sure where to start with dismantling your BS. First of all, IF you bothered to read and understand the bills at issue - HB 481, SB 954 and SB 164, you'd see the problems. The seaport bill covers all of the major seaports in Florida - over a dozen. If implemented, it will wipe out almost every viable anchorage in the state. Palm Beach is a decent example. The boats at anchor there do not conflict with the operation of the seaport in the least. The same applies to every other seaport in FL. In other words, there is NO need for this bill - unless you want to remove anchored out boats from in front of Sylvester Stallone's place, something he tried to get the local politicians to do recently.
The actual situation in Florida is that there are far more boats than slips available. In Biscayne Bay for example, there are at least 500 or more boats, some to 120 feet LOA, at anchor. Why? Because there are NO docks available. In January, 2024, I called every marina in Biscayne Bay. There were fewer than 10 available slips, and NO long term slips.
Some of the proposals in these bills will force hundreds of boats to move out of the county they are in every 30 days. Please, since you're so well informed, explain to us where those boats will go, when the next county over has the same problem.
But I'm the problem because I point out what's happening and how it will affect us?
You're entitled to your opinion, it's just a shame it's an uninformed one.

If you truly believe the bolded line, you either have an extremely large/deep draft boat or don't know much about anchoring.

There are plenty of other places to anchor for "cruisers", just maybe not squatters.

 

[mvweebles]

I'm not quite sure where to start with dismantling your BS. First of all, IF you bothered to read and understand the bills at issue - HB 481, SB 954 and SB 164, you'd see the problems. The seaport bill covers all of the major seaports in Florida - over a dozen. If implemented, it will wipe out almost every viable anchorage in the state. Palm Beach is a decent example. The boats at anchor there do not conflict with the operation of the seaport in the least. The same applies to every other seaport in FL. In other words, there is NO need for this bill - unless you want to remove anchored out boats from in front of Sylvester Stallone's place, something he tried to get the local politicians to do recently.
The actual situation in Florida is that there are far more boats than slips available. In Biscayne Bay for example, there are at least 500 or more boats, some to 120 feet LOA, at anchor. Why? Because there are NO docks available. In January, 2024, I called every marina in Biscayne Bay. There were fewer than 10 available slips, and NO long term slips.
Some of the proposals in these bills will force hundreds of boats to move out of the county they are in every 30 days. Please, since you're so well informed, explain to us where those boats will go, when the next county over has the same problem.
But I'm the problem because I point out what's happening and how it will affect us?
You're entitled to your opinion, it's just a shame it's an uninformed one.

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand the issue. Squatters have clogged anchorages for years and frankly made many anchorages unattractive to cruisers. They have taken advantage of laws and been rather selfish about it. When laws come along specifically because of that selfishness and entitled use of public resources, you want some of the very people who you've disenfranchised to come to your defense? Good luck with that.

Thanks for stopping by TF. Clearly you only show up when you want to agitate. Nothing else to add to boating discussions.

Peter

 

[Canuck Sailor]

So any port that wants to exclude anchoring out to a mile can have a no anchoring zone. Those tourist seaports that want cruiser business can choose not to have the exclusion zone.

Seems pretty sensible to me. Seems pretty obvious that seaports should be able to exclude certain areas do to boat / ship traffic patterns and other possible problems.



This is done now at Army Corps of Engineers campsites and docks (at locks). Basically your allowed to stay for no more than 2 weeks, and then you must move. This is done so that others may enjoy the extremely modestly priced facilities and prevent boats and campers from becoming permanent fixtures. Having a vessel anchored in the same location with occupants for 30 days is pretty much a guarantee of overboard discharge of holding tanks.

IMO, this is a very generous period of time. After 30 days, you're not cruising, you're now homesteading.

Ted

Ted - There is NO need for a 5000 foot setoff. If you looked at the map on the Save Florida's Anchorages page that shows the areas covered, you would understand. In Palm Beach, an anchorage many people know, the 5000 foot setoffs cover large areas where the water is 8 - 15 feet deep - NOT deep water seaport water.
Next, many people anchor out for the season before moving on. The USACE locks, etc. pertain solely to the Okeechobee Canal, and are irrelevant to this discussion. Florida law provides for free or very low cost pumpuouts, including mobile pumpouts, and properly organized anchoring programs, including mooring fields, have these.

 

[psneeld]

Here is something that to me says it all.... a boating instructor that disagrees with the Governor and Sheriffs.

Florida governor wants Boater Freedom Initiative to ban FWC vessel safety checks

Vessel safety checks help FWC law enforcement officers uncover crimes such as impaired boating and fishing violations.

www.palmbeachpost.com

"If there a mandatory vessel safety equipment inspections say every two years, and a compliance decal with an expiration date is issued, than that should eliminate the need for safety compliance stops," said Chapman School of Seamanship instructor Mike Kmiotek, who's also a Port St. Lucie charter fishing captain. "However, I feel that enforcing boating while under the influence laws and fishing regulations is an entirely different subject. Random stops only to check fishing regulation compliance and people boating under the influence should be permitted."

I know our local Sherriff's boat hardly ever got underway the years I lived on my boat near where it was docked. Not likely they were really up to speed on the maritime problems under their nose. Then again, in the big scheme of things, this whole hub bub barely reaches any meaningful level till some landowners start beating up their government reps and the media has time to cover that story.

 

[Canuck Sailor]

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand the issue. Squatters have clogged anchorages for years and frankly made many anchorages unattractive to cruisers. They have taken advantage of laws and been rather selfish about it. When laws come along specifically because of that selfishness and entitled use of public resources, you want some of the very people who you've disenfranchised to come to your defense? Good luck with that.

Thanks for stopping by TF. Clearly you only show up when you want to agitate. Nothing else to add to boating discussions.

Peter

No, you do NOT understand the issue, and that is evident by your initial and dismissive response. Squatters are a problem and there are means to deal with them including the propulsion test, the At Risk vessel program, turn in vessel program and more. I suggest you read the white paper - there are common sense solutions provided therein that do not impact cruisers.
I don't show up to agitate. I came here to inform, YOU decided to get obnoxious with your ad hominems, rather than intelligently address the issues raised.

 

[Canuck Sailor]

If you truly believe the bolded line, you either have an extremely large/deep draft boat or don't know much about anchoring.

There are plenty of other places to anchor for "cruisers", just maybe not squatters.

I very likely have many more miles than you - as a cruiser, delivery captain and charter boat captain, so let's just not go there. And if you claim there are plenty of other places to anchor, you do not know what you're talking about. Sorry, that's just how it is.

 

[Canuck Sailor]

Here is something that to me says it all.... a boating instructor that disagrees with the Govenor and Sheriffs.

Florida governor wants Boater Freedom Initiative to ban FWC vessel safety checks

Vessel safety checks help FWC law enforcement officers uncover crimes such as impaired boating and fishing violations.

www.palmbeachpost.com

"If there a mandatory vessel safety equipment inspections say every two years, and a compliance decal with an expiration date is issued, than that should eliminate the need for safety compliance stops," said Chapman School of Seamanship instructor Mike Kmiotek, who's also a Port St. Lucie charter fishing captain. "However, I feel that enforcing boating while under the influence laws and fishing regulations is an entirely different subject. Random stops only to check fishing regulation compliance and people boating under the influence should be permitted."

I know our local Sherriff's boat hardly ever got underway the years I lived on my boat near where it was docked. Not likely they were really up to speed on the maritime problems under their nose. Then again, in the big scheme of things, this whole hub bub barely reaches any meaningful level till some landowners start beating up their government reps and the media has time to cover that story.

thanks for the article. What DeSantis said - I watched him speak at the Miami Boat Show - was that he wanted safety stops that were being performed "without probable cause" to stop. Not legitimate stops.

 

[psneeld]

Ted - There is NO need for a 5000 foot setoff. If you looked at the map on the Save Florida's Anchorages page that shows the areas covered, you would understand. In Palm Beach, an anchorage many people know, the 5000 foot setoffs cover large areas where the water is 8 - 15 feet deep - NOT deep water seaport water.
Next, many people anchor out for the season before moving on. The USACE locks, etc. pertain solely to the Okeechobee Canal, and are irrelevant to this discussion. Florida law provides for free or very low cost pumpuouts, including mobile pumpouts, and properly organized anchoring programs, including mooring fields, have these.

What is the reason one needs to anchor for more than 2 weeks or so in a given area?

Certainly a season to me is excessive... now as long as they move around a bit, then a season in just one state isn't excessive. As far as Ted referral to the ACOE limit, it was exactly what I was thinking too, as well as BLM land for RVers. Temporary stays (like up to 2 weeks) seems just while squatting for a whole year or season seems a bit unfair to all other taxpayers that would like to visit.

I can agree the one mile limit seems crazy, it could be laid out better for each particular anchorage area.

Not sure about the Florida Law that provides for mobile pumpouts, while I know the Monroe County is covered and mostly funded by a Florida EPA grant, not sure where else has mobile pumpout boats... certainly not all of Florida.

 

[psneeld]

thanks for the article. What DeSantis said - I watched him speak at the Miami Boat Show - was that he wanted safety stops that were being performed "without probable cause" to stop. Not legitimate stops.

Please reread.... The instructor was not supporting the probable cause for BWI and fishing regs...he stated that was a different situation than safety checks.

The US courts have upheld that they can be legit stops if the state laws are written in certain ways and the approach to the vessel is done a certain way. No, can't say I have investigated those statutes.

As a former LEO myself I agree and I even know the decal this is total BS. I know so many boaters that get the USCGAUX decal thinking they won't be boarded and are lousy boat keepers that I used to tell USCG patrols to purposely ignore the decals as they might be like "fake security camers" to deter burglars.

If you have more "meaningful" time on the water than I when it comes to law enforcement and issues with cruisers versus derelict anchoring, I would be impressed.

 

[mvweebles]

No, you do NOT understand the issue, and that is evident by your initial and dismissive response. Squatters are a problem and there are means to deal with them including the propulsion test, the At Risk vessel program, turn in vessel program and more. I suggest you read the white paper - there are common sense solutions provided therein that do not impact cruisers.
I don't show up to agitate. I came here to inform, YOU decided to get obnoxious with your ad hominems, rather than intelligently address the issues raised.

I've lived in Pinellas County for 20+ years and I own several properties on the barrier islands. I cross the ICW daily and see the derelict boats every single day including many still abandoned on the beach because of Helene and Milton last fall.

I have no doubt there is some over-reach in the laws to which I have two responses: first, folks like yourself have made it impossible to find common sense solutions because not only do you agitate, but you litigate. You take advantage of everything you possibly can rather than being a good neighbor. Second (and I can't believe I'm saying this), I'd prefer govt over reach to the deliberate disregard of public resources your cohort represents.

In the end, your position either in actuality or in effect is anyone should be able to anchor anywhere for as long as they please in any floating object they can devise. I don't agree. I would not care except you show up in places like this with White Papers that are really propaganda and try to insinuate that true cruisers will suffer if they don't support squatter rights when the truth is this wouldn't be an issue is it weren't for the squatters taking advantage in the first place. You're harming me twice.

We view the world very differently. I understand your position perfectly well I just vehemently disagree with your conclusions. Don't mistake that as ignorance. Years of taking advantage of public resources has alienated people who were once sympathetic.

Peter

 

[Canuck Sailor]

What is the reason one needs to anchor for more than 2 weeks or so in a given area?

Certainly a season to me is excessive... now as long as they move around a bit, then a season in just one state isn't excessive. As far as Ted referral to the ACOE limit, it was exactly what I was thinking too, as well as BLM land for RVers. Temporary stays (like up to 2 weeks) seems just while squatting for a whole year or season seems a bit unfair to all other taxpayers that would like to visit.

I can agree the one mile limit seems crazy, it could be laid out better for each particular anchorage area.

Not sure about the Florida Law that provides for mobile pumpouts, while I know the Monroe County is covered and mostly funded by a Florida EPA grant, not sure where else has mobile pumpout boats... certainly not all of Florida.

Not everyone lives as you do, or would like them to. Lots of cruisers - if you were out here, you'd know this - spend considerable time in areas they enjoy. You know, like people in RVs, or who rent a condo for the winter? Maybe you hadn't heard?
The one mile limit is an attempt by Miami Beach to drive legally anchored boaters out of their waters. The fight has been ongoing for years, but heated up about 16 months ago with the election of a new commissioner who has made it his mission.
Florida law (the EPA) provides for grants and subsidies of up to 75% of costs of a mobile pump out. It also mandates that any established mooring field must provide pumpout facilities - most fields opt for a mobile solution.

 

[O C Diver]

The seaport bill covers all of the major seaports in Florida - over a dozen. If implemented, it will wipe out almost every viable anchorage in the state.

This is hilarious! So after you move past one mile of this dozen plus seaports, you only have 99% of the rest of Florida waters to anchor in. Apparently you haven't anchored much in Florida. Probably 99% of cruisers don't anchor near within a mile of seaports.

Some of the proposals in these bills will force hundreds of boats to move out of the county they are in every 30 days. Please, since you're so well informed, explain to us where those boats will go, when the next county over has the same problem.

And again, apparently you haven't anchored much in Florida. 99% of cruisers in Florida don't stay in the same anchorage for 30 days. Most cruisers travel around the state whether Florida residents or the thousands transiting through the state. Simply consider the number of cruisers going to the Bahamas and further South, that come from North or West of Florida. Having cruised and anchored about 70% of Florida's coast (Pensacola to Jacksonville), I would estimate less than 1% of cruisers will be impacted by the 30 day limit.

Ted

 

[psneeld]

If you read my posts, you would know that I do boat and rub elbows with cruisers on many days here in Florida.

Unless you are now a Florida resident like me, boating all year here in FL and often visiting a highly transitory and seasonal visitor marina like FT Pierce City marina, I'm not sure where you are coming from. Was just at FPCM last week when we held a memorial for a friend who cruised and lived on boats for the last 50 years here.

You keep saying you have boated more and know more than some pretty savvy guys who own boats/property down here and have cruised a great many years with boating profession backgrounds too. I seem up to date on boating news as shown by me comments on other boating laws here in Fl.

Like Peter, no, I don't share your views on how people should be able to do what and where they want on Florida waters....that's pretty obvious. What is obvious to me is some long term anchored boats make cruising that much harder on other by forcing all this legislation that may limit all anchoring rights and create a PIA paperwork system to enforce it all.

 

[Canuck Sailor]

Please reread.... The instructor was not supporting the probable cause for BWI and fishing regs...he stated that was a different situation than safety checks.

As a former LEO myself I agree and I even know the decal this is total BS. I know so many boaters that get the USCGAUX decal thinking they won't be boarded and are lousy boat keepers that I used to tell USCG patrols to purposely ignore the decals as they might be like "fake security camers" to deter burglars.

If you have more "meaningful" time on the water than I when it comes to law enforcement and issues with cruisers versus derelict anchoring, I would be impressed.

Then be impressed. I have spent a great deal of time since 2007 informing myself on this situation. I'm worked as a delivery captain, charter captain, speaker at hundreds of boat shows and yacht clubs and webinars, an author and writer for numerous major boating publications.
The situation in Florida is urgent and if we, as boaters don't act, we are going to find our rights to anchor overnight at all, gone. Don't say it can't happen. Fl§ 327.4108 blocked off all overnight anchoring in three areas of Miami Beach and Fort Lauderdale in 2016, and last year, added several more areas in Miami Beach.