Florida anchoring issues

[Canuck Sailor]

Lets be clear, in your opinion anyone not accepting your solution is uninformed. Meanwhile what it really comes down to is YOU don't like the solutions that don't support YOUR wants. On other thread you said my 2 things were not workable, but they 100% were you just didn't like them.

I have been reading they Florida anchoring threads for 20 years and I lived them for 8 years. I surely am an idiot.

No. Anyone not READING my paper is not informed. You might just be surprised at what's in there, but since you can't be bothered to read what I've said, I don't see the point of continuing to engage with you.
If I said they weren't workable, I had a reason for it. You can educate yourself on my thinking, or you can keep blithering mindlessly. I don't really care. This is not a pleasant group of people I'm learning.

 

[Don L]

I read your "solution" it isn't a solution at all IMO. It is YOUR solution that doesn't really fix anything.

Now of course to you that makes ME uninformed.

 

[Canuck Sailor]

I read your "solution" it isn't a solution at all IMO. It is YOUR solution that doesn't really fix anything.

Now of course to you that makes ME uninformed.

if that's your take on this, you either didn't read it fully, or you lack reading comprehension. Why won't those idea work? Tell me what it is you don't understand, because i assure you, those ideas WILL work.

 

[Don L]

oh this is just BS

 

[psneeld]

How about taking one of your suggestions, like the Cocoa study of the 4 anchorages at a time and getting support for your suggestions and see just what us uninformed, sanctimonious pita's like me might have thoughts on.

You know.... the study about the areas where I anchored overnight in area A several times, waiting to get into Cocoa Village or the free dock but was imaginary because it's too shallow to anchor there. Or constructing a hugely expensive breakwater for an area that supports boaters who can't afford to store boats without subsidizing. You know, the ones who also can't afford insurance that would remove their boats if a storm sinks them.

You have a mission and some good ideas, try picking other smart brains rather than bashing them as all it does is create more bashing on both sides. Maybe I don't know the ins and outs of all these new laws, but I have learned from history and experience.

 

[snowskierandpilot]

Discussions quickly become arguments today when our objectivity becomes clouded with subjectivity, usually, when we attempt to change another's opinion. Respect one's opinion being different from yours before the discussion derails with name calling etc. Glad I only had to read the posts and did not have to endure a verbal rendition where the voices would have become louder with each point and counterpoint. Make your views known to the appropriate legislators regarding the issue and be sure that you are a registered voter in the state, county, or city where any vote will be held. The official answering your call or letter will ask your name and other identifying data to be certain you are eligible to vote re the issue that concerns you.

 

[O C Diver]

It's not enforced? Tell that to the FWC officer who told me while I was in Melbourne that I had to register once I was over the time limit. I'm seasonal.

There are thousands of boats that come from out of state or Canada each each fall to winter in Florida. The migration starts up North in September, with most heading North in March or April. All an FWC officer would have to do is walk the docks, note out of state / country registrations, and then check reservation periods with the marina office. The state could collect millions.

It's not enforced for the majority of boats paying dockage or mooring taxes.

As for the Bahamas - boaters leave for the Bahamas anytime from late November through to April. Just run on down to No Name Harbor, or Palm Beach, and see the boats waiting for a weather window. And I've done the crossing over 20 times, so I think I'm well aware of what is happening.

Apparently you're not well aware of what's happening. The masses in the fall migration travel South and cross in December. A few stragglers do it in February. Apparently most know better than you, to do it in December with nice weather and not in February when you have to wait weeks for a window.

As for boaters at anchor because there are too few slips in Florida - you want to penalize them because of something they have no control over?
You are not a serious or well informed person.

People who anchor out for the winter, are mostly doing it for financial reasons.

While there are some areas that fill up between slips and moorings, my winter cruising almost always finds moorings and slips available.

Then there's this new fangled thing called a reservation. Sometimes you may have to make it 6 to 9 months in advance or pick another town to winter in. This is no different when I traveled North. You need to reserve for the best locations. Propper prior planning prevents standing when others have a seat!

Ted

 

[Canuck Sailor]

How about taking one of your suggestions, like the Cocoa study of the 4 anchorages at a time and getting support for your suggestions and see just what us uninformed, sanctimonious pita's like me might have thoughts on.

You know.... the study about the areas where I anchored overnight in area A several times, waiting to get into Cocoa Village or the free dock but was imaginary because it's too shallow to anchor there. Or constructing a hugely expensive breakwater for an area that supports boaters who can't afford to store boats without subsidizing. You know, the ones who also can't afford insurance that would remove their boats if a storm sinks them.

You have a mission and some good ideas, try picking other smart brains rather than bashing them as all it does is create more bashing on both sides. Maybe I don't know the ins and outs of all these new laws, but I have learned from history and experience.

To have an intelligent discussion, people have to read the paper first, which you've done. Thank you. In something like 22 years of cruising the ICW, and spending a lot of time in Cocoa, I have never once seen a boat anchor in section A. You'd be the exception to that from the sound of it.
The breakwater is an idea that was proposed by a former Cocoa mayor, who is also a friend of mine, as well as several others who engage with the local waterfront issues. It's a good idea, because it would have a variety of benefits, as it does in Fort Pierce. In my scenario, it would also protect the mooring field I suggest be built there, you missed that.
I don't care to bash, but when people come at me without bothering to read "Anchoring a Solution", there's no discussion to be had. I do have some expertise in this matter, and thank you for noting it, but some here figure they're God's gift to the forum and can't be bothered to engage intelligently.

 

[psneeld]

I have completed my mission here.

And if you think it's everyone else you may know this topic but you don't get forum discussion and maybe people in general.

 

[Canuck Sailor]

There are thousands of boats that come from out of state or Canada each each fall to winter in Florida. The migration starts up North in September, with most heading North in March or April. All an FWC officer would have to do is walk the docks, note out of state / country registrations, and then check reservation periods with the marina office. The state could collect millions.

It's not enforced for the majority of boats paying dockage or mooring taxes.

Ted

forgot to mention - the FWC walks the docks around new years day to do this, as the authorities also do in South Carolina. And if you think the state wants to piss off thousands of boaters in this way, I just don't know what to tell you.

 

[Canuck Sailor]

oh this is just BS

If that's the case, then make it. Your say so that my suggestions are BS has no weight. Debate me, show I'm wrong. IF you're able to that is.

 

[Larry M]

This thread is about ready to be closed or deleted. Some posts have been edited or removed for the personal attacks and the fowl language.

Be Courteous!​

We aim to ensure that the forum is an enjoyable place that you want to visit time and time again. Our philosophy is that we want TrawlerForum to be an online reflection of the boating community. Treat each other with respect just as you would on the water.

• Our rules extend to all sections of the website including private messaging.
• Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully. Excessive sarcasm, belligerence, insults, profanity, anger, offensive comments are not acceptable.

 

[mvweebles]

This came out yesterday. I found it quite informative:

Thanks for posting this video/podcast. I'm surprised by the AGLCAs position against most anchoring legislation. In listening to the Exec Director, she seems most interested in quantity of anchorages, not quality.

While there is clearly a "NIMBY" element of disgruntled homeowners, I think AGLCA would serve their constituency better had they been more active in supporting legislation that prevents long term anchor outs. As it is, they seem to sidestep them by saying it's an affordable housing issue or a slip availability issue so not part of the problem statement. That's a cop-out. Ignoring this large segment of the problem ignores the concerns of cruisers and property owners and frankly exacerbates the problem. Legit cruisers are faced with compromised anchorages no matter what: govt restrictions or clogged by squatters. The tide has changed - increasingly, people are fed up with squatters and will take their chances with govt which is more of less where BoatUS has evolved.

Peter

 

[dannc]

I was lucky, or maybe unlucky, in that I was born in FLA before the population growth exploded. The unlucky/luck part is that I know what a paradise the state was before it got paved over.

My dad got a sailboat in the 1980's and we spent our time in the sailing South Florida area. Never once saw a derelict boat. Never saw a boat go ashore or sunk because it was just anchored out being used as a house.

Course derelict boats are not a FLA problem, we see them, in SC were we go sailing. More of them year after year. The boats were obviously abandoned to sick or go ashore leaving the tax payer with the cleanup bill.

We would sail, well ok, motor through Ft. Lauderdale and Miami to get south to the anchorages we used. The idea of anchoring in one of the cities never, ever popped in our heads. WHY would anyone want to anchor in a city when you had soooo much better places to go?

With the population growth, the number of power boats, especially party boats, and now people all but permanently anchored, there will be a reaction via laws and regulations to handle the issues. If there were no problems, there would not be a need for people to be complaining to their representatives for action.

 

[3rdOrderEffect]

SB 594 as I read it could allow a government entity or municipality to establish a no-anchoring zone in Lake Worth that would extend to the North side of Peanut Island, which currently is a popular day-use anchoring area for those visiting the island. The island's public dock/harbor is very small, maybe big enough for five or six boats the size of my 31' Camano.

While the bill gives the applicant the ability to draw their own boundaries more well defined than a simple 5000ft radius from a given point, and requires them to hold two public hearings for comment, I cannot support this bill as written.

As for HB 481, we already have a 45 day limit. Just enforce the existing law. I really doubt there is a problem solved by people moving along at the one month mark rather than the 1.5 month mark.

FWIW, I keep my boat in a slip at a marina in Stuart and pay dearly for the right to do so. I am not a "cruiser" or "squatter" as defined previously in this thread. But if you tell me I cant anchor my boat off the beach at peanut island you can go pound sand.

 

[motion30]

Florida has had the propulsion demonstration law on the books now for probably four or five years. I rarely see them use it. That could easily get rid of the derelict boats. But they keep making you laws that they don't have the manpower to enforce. I guess that's all they want to do is make me laws instead of solving the problem

 

[Iggy]

I am jumping in this on the late side! Also I am not going to read every single post in front of mine. Its just too much!

But I don't see the real problem other than, maybe 5000 foot rule/law. Not knowing all the ports in question.
On one hand, if the boaters can't anchor within a reasonable distance. Than the shops/stores may loose that income.

Now, the 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. HERE I am not seeing a problem.

So I can't stay on one place for more than 30 days at anchor. The Winter is 5 months long, maybe more or less for some. But who what's to stay in the same place for more than 30 days? Not me, I want to move around and see places. Its that why we would be called Cruisers? For me, thats the whole point of owning a boat.

You can always get a slip for those over 30 days. Yes, it cost money!

Now if I went to Canada or any other country. Why would I want to stir the pot on there laws. I would be a guest and be respectful to there laws.

 

[twistedtree]

Canuck Sailor's White Paper led me to this....

Judged a Grifter in Canada, He Fights for Anchoring Rights in Florida (Video)

Wally Moran Disses Boating Groups, Will Seek Donations

loosecannon.substack.com

 

[twistedtree]

The OP seems to want to go anchor somewhere for the season, and I'm hearing a resounding No, you are not welcome to do that. If you want to stay somewhere for an extended time, get a slip or get a mooring. And if they are not available because it's all full up, then move on - it's all full up. If you arrive at a hotel and find it's full, it's not OK to set up camp outside.

 

[mvweebles]

The Loose Cannon article linked in TTs post describes how the hardcore position espoused by the OP has been counterproductive. Because the squatter-class of anchor outs have become so resistant by fighting every reasonable compromise, communities have sought increasingly draconian solutions.

Example. Near my home in Madeira Beach FL there was a sizeable dinghy dock near a shopping complex that includes a Publix grocery store, a McDonalds, a decent pizzeria/bar, and a couple other nearby shops, banks, etc. This was chronically clogged with dinghies from people who lived on their boat and worked regular jobs so left their dinghy (or whatever could pass for a dinghy) for hours. Not only was it an attractor to seemingly indigent boaters, but the flotilla of junky dinghies shooed away legitimate cruisers who would actually spend money. Landlord closed it down. To add insult, the flotilla of anchor outs, probably led by someone like the OP, tried to sue the landholder to force them to re-open the dock!!!! There are similar stories throughout Florida population centers - the AGCLA podcast mentions one in Biscayne Bay, though I am flummoxed why they don't understand the direct line their support of unfettered anchor rights has had on legit cruisers. They simply don't understand that implicit support of squatters has caused the baby to be tossed with the bathwater.

In my mind, time limits like 30-days out of 6-months are difficult to enforce at the margin (say 31-days). What makes them effective are for the egregious offenders - fork-lifting the squatters out. Unfortunately there is risk for legit cruisers. The NIMBY homeowner will certainly keep count and call the sheriff but still, that wouldn't be difficult.

I wish we could all just get along. But let's face it. A few spoil it for the many.

Peter

 

[psneeld]

Thanks twistedtree!

I said I was done but your post deserves a personal thanks.

I do value most opinions, but only if the come from someone I respect without reservation.

Thanks again.

PS.... feel sorry for the Mayor of Cocoa....

 

[Don L]

As part of my looking at getting back into boating I have been eyeballing an anchorage near my house. I like that it would be free, close to my house, has a boat ramp pretty close could use for dinghy, a low end marina across the way maybe to use for dinghy instead. I have been watching the 5 anchored boats there for 10 months now and think maybe 1 has people, The only time I have seen any of them move is that 2 of them are now washed onto shore.

Guess since no one seems to want to either require boats to have insurance (like FL does for cars), or post a big yearly fee to cover removal of those boats, I has a Fl resident have to pay for their removal.

 

[O C Diver]

Many thanks to Twistedtree for shedding the stark bright light of day on a shady character!

Considering the OP's past and possible intentions, this thread probably needs to be closed.

Ted

 

[SteveK]

DEJAVU. Anyone else? I did not read this thread on Saturday Feb 21st 2025, now 24th yet it feels like these or similar posts have occurred before.
The OP scraping paint previously posted in 2014 suddenly opens this topic does not sound right.
What does sound right is for an American pretending to be Canadian starting this thread. JMO.

 

[slowgoesit]

As part of my looking at getting back into boating I have been eyeballing an anchorage near my house. I like that it would be free, close to my house, has a boat ramp pretty close could use for dinghy, a low end marina across the way maybe to use for dinghy instead. I have been watching the 5 anchored boats there for 10 months now and think maybe 1 has people, The only time I have seen any of them move is that 2 of them are now washed onto shore.

Guess since no one seems to want to either require boats to have insurance (like FL does for cars), or post a big yearly fee to cover removal of those boats, I has a Fl resident have to pay for their removal.

Don,

As a responsible boater, I have an issue with being required to pay an annual fee for removal of derelict boats. No boat I have ever owned has ever been derelict. Yet for the time I was in Washington State, every year I had to pay a fee for "derelict boat removal", which was then siphoned off to pay for fighting wildfires. . . (which was handled by the same agency) . . leaving little money remaining to remove derelict boats, until I paid the fee AGAIN the next year, which would be siphoned off to pay for who knows what, totally unrelated to derelict boats . . . .

 

[Don L]

Don,

As a responsible boater, I have an issue with being required to pay an annual fee for removal of derelict boats.

Of course boaters "have an issue" with it. But just think how the non boaters feel about it.

 

[slowgoesit]

Of course boaters "have an issue" with it. But just think how the non boaters feel about it.

Yes, but making me pay every year for the Derelicts is just the same as having them pay for removal of junk cars every year. JMHO

 

[Marco Flamingo]

Every time I go out on my boat I thank the gods I'm not in Florida and have nothing better to cruise than the "Great Loop." Great? Really? It doesn't sound that great having seen the pictures. But to address the OP's issue, I have also have written a scholarly white paper that none of you are sufficiently intelligent to understand. Now having insulted everyone reading this thread, here is a synopsis that is hopefully sufficiently simplistic to be understandable by those who are following.

One of the main issues is stated as:

HB 481 limits anchoring for more than 30 days in any area with a population of over 1.5 million.

The obvious solution is to eliminate areas with a population over 1.5 million. Who would want to boat there, anyway? Take a look at this arial photo that was posted above at #75. It illustrates the problem. This is not a photo of an open air garbage dump site, these are homes befouling the beaches and uplands!! Yes, it is unsightly to boaters. Yes, the waste (human and pets) poisons the waterways. Yes, many are occupied for months out of the year by transients. This hasn't happened yet where I cruise (and I have no desire to cruise the "Great Landfill"), but it could if we in the PNW don't act now. It has already started.

The only viable solution is to limit human whelping. All of the other proposed solutions are short-term and ultimately ineffective. First would be tax breaks for childless citizens, obviously. Government sponsored sterilization for the enlightened. Yep. Citizenship for immigrants granted only to those who can prove infertility. Certainly. Yearly license fees for more than two children per. A possible revenue generator and a fair distribution of resources.

See, I've got all the answers. Now I'm off to write a white paper on the Ukrainian issue. You're welcome.

 

[Jklotz]

Every time I go out on my boat I thank the gods I'm not in Florida and have nothing better to cruise than the "Great Loop." Great? Really? It doesn't sound that great having seen the pictures. But to address the OP's issue, I have also have written a scholarly white paper that none of you are sufficiently intelligent to understand. Now having insulted everyone reading this thread, here is a synopsis that is hopefully sufficiently simplistic to be understandable by those who are following.

One of the main issues is stated as:

HB 481 limits anchoring for more than 30 days in any area with a population of over 1.5 million.

The obvious solution is to eliminate areas with a population over 1.5 million. Who would want to boat there, anyway? Take a look at this arial photo that was posted above at #75. It illustrates the problem. This is not a photo of an open air garbage dump site, these are homes befouling the beaches and uplands!! Yes, it is unsightly to boaters. Yes, the waste (human and pets) poisons the waterways. Yes, many are occupied for months out of the year by transients. This hasn't happened yet where I cruise (and I have no desire to cruise the "Great Landfill"), but it could if we in the PNW don't act now. It has already started.

The only viable solution is to limit human whelping. All of the other proposed solutions are short-term and ultimately ineffective. First would be tax breaks for childless citizens, obviously. Government sponsored sterilization for the enlightened. Yep. Citizenship for immigrants granted only to those who can prove infertility. Certainly. Yearly license fees for more than two children per. A possible revenue generator and a fair distribution of resources.

See, I've got all the answers. Now I'm off to write a white paper on the Ukrainian issue. You're welcome.

Sounds a bit like "A Modest Proposal" by Johnathan Swift. Remember that one?

A Modest Proposal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ronobrien]

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 suspect that the bills, if signed into law, would be just a tool for enforcement on those that are abusing anchoring rights. They likely don't have the resources or inclination to cite a boater that has stopped for a night or 2 on their passage.