Florida Anchoring Law - HB481 update

[mvweebles]

Yesterday I travelled 600-miles round trip to Tallahassee to speak for 2-minutes in favor of Florida House Bill 481 (HB481), though my endorsement was partial. HB481 is an amendment to current law regulating anchoring. It seeks to reduce loopholes that allow permanent liveaboards to anchor long-term which is a problem in many safe anchorages in popular areas along the ICW and AICW. It is currently winding its way through the legislative process and was being considered by the Florida House Subcommittee on Natural Resources & Disasters. Assuming it clears a couple more legislative hurdles, glide path is for HB481 to become law July 1 2025.

HB481 has three Sections:

• Limits anchoring to 30-days out in any 6-month period in counties with more than 1.5m population;
• Declares four additional no-anchor zones between residential islands in the Biscayne Bay area; and
• Increases no-anchor buffer around mooring fields from 100 to 300 feet.

I spoke in favor of Section 1; and against Sections 2 and 3 as they are special carve-outs for rich folks who don’t want anyone on the water behind their house. To my thinking, they want exclusive use of the water which bears similarlity to permanent anchor-outs who want exclusive use of the water for their use. It's a public resource - property rights stop at the waterline (mini-rant over).

In addition to myself, speaking in favor of the Bill were a councilman and a marine law enforcement officer from the city of Miami Beach; and the Mayor from a small residential city of 8000 residents in Biscayne Bay.

Speaking against the Bill was the Exec Director of AGLCA and two other AGCLA members, including one who was also a member of the Seven Seas Cruising Association.

The Bill passed on unanimous vote, though two committee members expressed concern about the Section 2 and 3 issues (noted above) so perhaps the Bill will be tweaked as it goes through the Florida Senate Subcommittee before headed to both full chambers for a vote. I sincerely hope so.

I talked with the AGLCA folks after the meeting. Frankly, I am perplexed by their blanket “no” not just on this Bill, but on all bills that regulate anchoring. ActiveCaptain and NoForeignLand are full of anchorage reviews complaining that liveaboards clog anchorages and take the best spots. Many communities that once rolled out the red carpet for cruisers with dinghy docks have removed them because they attracted permanent anchor-outs.

AGLCA did ask a good question of the Miami Beach Councilman: “Why is the current law that prohibits anchoring past 45-days out of 6-months not sufficient?” The councilman explained the current law requires the establishment of an Anchor Limitation Area (ALA) which can be no larger than 100 acres. Works fine for highly specific areas but is administratively impractical for larger areas. He also expressed that if they can get rid of the Liveaboard problem, he'll be the first one to sponsor City legislation re-opening the dinghy dock they closed a couple years ago.

For the record, the AGLCA states they are in favor of time limits for anchoring. A good chunk of member dues go to paying for lobbyists (there are three registered AGLCA lobbyists registered for HB481). As an observation, rather than nitpicking the inconsequential difference between 45-day ALA and 30-day HB481 sweep, I wish AGLCA had spent their time and money on making HB481 a better bill – removing the offensive Sections 2 and 3. Instead, they are firmly on the JUST SAY NO TO ANCHOR LAWS camp - antibodies to change. Not a good look for anyone.

This was a first for me, especially the concept of supporting a Bill that I partially disagreed with. Democratic process got real for me yesterday.

 

[psneeld]

Thanks for the update.

Did you mean the Democratic process or the political process?

 

[Spike]

The AGLCA is just one member of a group of boating organizations that have banded together to hire the lobbyist's to work against the persistent attacks against anchoring rights. As far as I know all lobbyist are paid from a separate fund entirely made up of voluntary donations, not member dues, so you may want to check your facts. If you followed the past several legislation sessions you would know that this group is anything but "JUST SAY NO TO ANCHOR LAWS" and all about reaching an agreeable compromise.

Two (?) years ago the time limit and distance of ALA's was a fair compromise for cruising boaters and agreed to by both the legislature and the coalition of boating groups. Now city's are trying, again, to make their own rules instead of enforcing the ones already on the books.

The cruising community is never going to have deep enough pockets to fight the wealthy landowners who don't want their water views disturbed but we can still make our views known. You saw that in the outcome of the vote. I wonder what city will try next year?

 

[Bud]

We need anchorage reform here in the Keys. I would keep them simple and enforcable. There are regs now that require a vessel thats anchored to be able to move a certain distance under its own power. This requirement if enforced would clean up a good part of the problem down here, but its not enforced, because of the time and resources it requires to perform, document and demonstrate that requirement. To add more layers of regs may only help the high end areas where enforcement can be demanded. Having said that, the third part of this bill (Increases no-anchor buffer around mooring fields from 100 to 300 feet) would help the mooring feilds down here. What happens is vessels anchored around the mooring feild end up dragging into vessels that are in the mooring field and do damage.
Bud

 

[Jklotz]

Your approach makes sense to me. Question is, if they are not currently enforcing the laws they already have, what's to say they will enforce any new laws?

 

[Blissboat]

Waterborne law enforcement in general is woefully underfunded, at least here in Florida.

 

[mvweebles]

Your approach makes sense to me. Question is, if they are not currently enforcing the laws they already have, what's to say they will enforce any new laws?

It's a fair question and one the AGLCA asked the Miami Beach Councilman outside of chambers, at least as it pertains to the current 45-day anchoring limit cited by @Spike in Post #2 above. 45-day limit only applies to a defined Anchoring Limitation Area (ALA). These can be no larger than 100-acres. All popular areas (Tampa Bay, Biscayne Bay, Keys, etc.) are much larger - Biscayne Bay is apparently over 5000 acres and would take something like 75 ALAs to cover. The Councilman's response back to AGLCA question was a good one: "If you're in favor of time limits (ALA's 45-days), would you support HB481 if it were 45-days instead of 30?" While the question remained unanswered, I am 90% sure AGLCA would not support the broader time limit though I am not sure why except they seem to feel anchorage rights are under attack (they are) and object to them all. It's a very defensive position that will ground lost. In my opinion, they should spend more time crafting laws instead of objecting to proposed legislation. But I'm not an AGLCA member.

There are laws to deal with Derelict Vessels. But let's make one thing clear - they are a separate issue from liveaboard vessels. And yes, there are laws about liveaboard vessels that are easily circumvented. Four years ago I happened to attend a local city hall meeting where the Pinellas County Sheriff's marine deputies presented on why they're not able to enforce these laws. This is a country of due process, and it takes a lot of time and leg work to enforce the existing laws.

So the question isn't why aren't the current laws enforced, it's are the laws enforceable without a huge amount of overhead? For example, a motivated detective could disprove a liveaboard's claim that they actually have a residence in North Carolina, but imagine the amount of work involved in that.

So while the AGLCA are steadfastly resisting a very real problem (anchor-outs) that affects their members and needs a solution, they do not have a seat at the table to resist ridiculous bolt-on amendments that are the brainchild of a wealthy landowner.

Peter

 

[mvweebles]

The AGLCA is just one member of a group of boating organizations that have banded together to hire the lobbyist's to work against the persistent attacks against anchoring rights. As far as I know all lobbyist are paid from a separate fund entirely made up of voluntary donations, not member dues, so you may want to check your facts.

All I can tell you is lobbyists must register for each Bill in which they are engaged. There were three indviduals who listed AGLCA as their patron.

As far as checking my facts, I can only speak to what Kim Russo said in her podcast (HERE). She clearly reports that the AGLCA has hired a lobbyist in Florida to champion their fight against certain anchoring legislation. Granted, she doesn't say it came from membership dues, but where else would it come from? Frankly, it's reasonable for the money to come from their membership dues - it's part of the reason people join AGLCA.

If you followed the past several legislation sessions you would know that this group is anything but "JUST SAY NO TO ANCHOR LAWS" and all about reaching an agreeable compromise.

All I can tell you is how I saw them yesterday with legislation that is moving through the Florida Legislature with unanamous support. I hear the words in a podcast "we support time limts" but in front of the legislative body, the message was much different - they made no distinction, just blanket objection of HB481. Their prerogative to voice that opinion but won't change a damn thing.

Peter

 

[psneeld]

I would be interested (maybe not enough to research in depth)... but anyone who has spent some time on the ACIW and the harbors around the Mediterranean...can you compare what is going on versus any restrictive laws over there?

My guess is many places are like the US maybe 40+ years ago. The overall boating density isn't what it is now on the ACIW and probably does not have the run down liveaboard or derelict issues to the same degree. The congregations of fishing boats may be a factor in places but often I see a bit of pride in many of them so their appearance is maybe taken differently.

On the other side of the world.... boat living in harbors in the Southeastern part of Aisia may be extreme to the other end. Wonder if there even are regulations in some places.

Anyhow... seems we USA types often try and reinvent the wheel when we don't have to, so I always look outside the box/country or history to find solutions rather than struggle to create a completely new one.

Peter - I can't say where all the money comes from but I do remember when I was an AGLCA, they did solicit donations to support fighting anchoring laws. I haven't been a member for years so again... could be mixed funding, maybe not. People often mention the rich landowner problem...but may forget there are some pretty wealthy cruisers to pay lawyers and lobbyists if they care enough.

 

[mvweebles]

Peter - I can't say where all the money comes from but I do remember when I was an AGLCA, they did solicit donations to support fighting anchoring laws. I haven't been a member for years so again... could be mixed funding, maybe not. People often mention the rich landowner problem...but may forget there are some pretty wealthy cruisers to pay lawyers and lobbyists if they care enough.

I guess my point is they would be more successful if they worked to sponsor reasonable laws versus fighting all laws. In the past 5-years, COVID and a ridiculous run-up in Miami property values have made the liveaboard problem explode. Tolerance of the romantic ideal of living on a boat at anchor has lost out to the reality of floating slums. To expect no change in the laws is quaint but naive.

Good point about rich cruisers could hire lobbyists if they wanted. AGLCA is losing the war one battle at a time. It's probably too late, but a better strategy would have been to craft acceptable laws instead of being an antibody to anything that remotely affects anchoring, even reasonable ones. The fact is an anchorage with a heavy population of liveaboards is seedy and frankly, pisses me off when you can't anchor because they've taken all the decent spots. This is the problem AGLCA should be trying to solve - it's front-and-center for cruisers.

Just my opinion.

Peter

 

[Don L]

To me the anchor restrictions currently are aimed at all boats, when in fact they want to target certain boats.

I can see major fallout if the anchor setback to mooring fields becomes 300'

 

[mvweebles]

To me the anchor restrictions currently are aimed at all boats, when in fact they want to target certain boats.

I can see major fallout if the anchor setback to mooring fields becomes 300'

I tried to express this as a concern and there was some sympathy from a couple of the Reps. It's a good example where targeted lobbying might be helpful.

This is a fight between landowners and squatters. A felllow cruiser described himself as "By Catch" in the fight.

Peter

 

[Don L]

When it comes right down to it very few in FL govt/towns/cities care about anchored boats except getting rid of them. Some of the mooring fields are important to those locations because they provide workers for the lower cost workers.

 

[Spike]

I'm a member of both the AGLCA and MTOA who are 2 of the 4 members of the coalition hiring the lobbyists. I know both ask for donations outside of dues to pay for said efforts as they know that not everyone agrees with getting involved in the political process. I only know what I'm told by the organizations about where the money comes from. What actually happens behind the scenes may be different but I tend to trust the leaders of both to do the right thing.

As far as working to craft acceptable legislation, that's exactly what happened 2 years ago when the ALA's and time limits were enacted. The group worked with legislators to come to an agreement that would work state wide and everyone thought the problem was solved. Counties can apply for additional ALA's as long as they don't cover more than 10% (I believe) of the counties navigable waterways. Now big cities and counties are trying to circumvent that law instead of working to enforce it.

I know that these efforts are not aimed at the cruising boaters but at the squatters that are 1 step from being homeless (sorry, unhoused) but you can't say that in polite company or in Tallahassee. I agree with you Peter that this is probably a lost cause and other cities and counties will be knocking on the door next year for their exemption. I don't agree that the coalition is to blame for fighting against this bill. I also don't believe they are against reasonable compromises.

Peter, I applaud your efforts to drive to Tallassee to express your opinion...hell, I agree with your position! I'm just asking to refrain from bashing the coalition in general and AGLCA in particular. They are just trying to do right by their membership.

 

[motion30]

Yesterday I travelled 600-miles round trip to Tallahassee to speak for 2-minutes in favor of Florida House Bill 481 (HB481), though my endorsement was partial. HB481 is an amendment to current law regulating anchoring. It seeks to reduce loopholes that allow permanent liveaboards to anchor long-term which is a problem in many safe anchorages in popular areas along the ICW and AICW. It is currently winding its way through the legislative process and was being considered by the Florida House Subcommittee on Natural Resources & Disasters. Assuming it clears a couple more legislative hurdles, glide path is for HB481 to become law July 1 2025.

HB481 has three Sections:

• Limits anchoring to 30-days out in any 6-month period in counties with more than 1.5m population;
• Declares four additional no-anchor zones between residential islands in the Biscayne Bay area; and
• Increases no-anchor buffer around mooring fields from 100 to 300 feet.

I spoke in favor of Section 1; and against Sections 2 and 3 as they are special carve-outs for rich folks who don’t want anyone on the water behind their house. To my thinking, they want exclusive use of the water which bears similarlity to permanent anchor-outs who want exclusive use of the water for their use. It's a public resource - property rights stop at the waterline (mini-rant over).

In addition to myself, speaking in favor of the Bill were a councilman and a marine law enforcement officer from the city of Miami Beach; and the Mayor from a small residential city of 8000 residents in Biscayne Bay.

Speaking against the Bill was the Exec Director of AGLCA and two other AGCLA members, including one who was also a member of the Seven Seas Cruising Association.

The Bill passed on unanimous vote, though two committee members expressed concern about the Section 2 and 3 issues (noted above) so perhaps the Bill will be tweaked as it goes through the Florida Senate Subcommittee before headed to both full chambers for a vote. I sincerely hope so.

I talked with the AGLCA folks after the meeting. Frankly, I am perplexed by their blanket “no” not just on this Bill, but on all bills that regulate anchoring. ActiveCaptain and NoForeignLand are full of anchorage reviews complaining that liveaboards clog anchorages and take the best spots. Many communities that once rolled out the red carpet for cruisers with dinghy docks have removed them because they attracted permanent anchor-outs.

AGLCA did ask a good question of the Miami Beach Councilman: “Why is the current law that prohibits anchoring past 45-days out of 6-months not sufficient?” The councilman explained the current law requires the establishment of an Anchor Limitation Area (ALA) which can be no larger than 100 acres. Works fine for highly specific areas but is administratively impractical for larger areas. He also expressed that if they can get rid of the Liveaboard problem, he'll be the first one to sponsor City legislation re-opening the dinghy dock they closed a couple years ago.

For the record, the AGLCA states they are in favor of time limits for anchoring. A good chunk of member dues go to paying for lobbyists (there are three registered AGLCA lobbyists registered for HB481). As an observation, rather than nitpicking the inconsequential difference between 45-day ALA and 30-day HB481 sweep, I wish AGLCA had spent their time and money on making HB481 a better bill – removing the offensive Sections 2 and 3. Instead, they are firmly on the JUST SAY NO TO ANCHOR LAWS camp - antibodies to change. Not a good look for anyone.

This was a first for me, especially the concept of supporting a Bill that I partially disagreed with. Democratic process got real for me yesterday.

There is already a wall on the book that would allow them to address this issue. it is the proof of propulsion law. Where law enforcement can make you prove that your boat can power itself. I don't know why you feel like we need more confusing legislation. And I don't know why you hate our community

 

[Helmsman]

Peter,

I, too, applaud your decision to show up at the HB 481 discussion.

The dues from neither association are used to cover lobbying efforts. Both the MTOA and the AGLCA conduct a separate fund raising drive to pay for the lobbyists. That is a fact. I contribute to the AGLCA fund drive, and occasionally to the MTOA drive. It is a shoestring operation compared to the folks pushing these growing restrictions to the public use of public waterways.

Both groups and their lobbyists were able to fashion a compromise to a bill a year or so ago on anchoring in the same area. If they hadn’t reached that compromise, the restrictions today would be much greater. But, it was noted then that there will be new challenges every year, and here we are.

I believe this will continue until no anchoring will be allowed in the area. I also believe it will create safety issues for folks traveling the area, and using the area to stage to the Bahamas, and beyond.

Of course, if successful, these same actions will spread to other areas. Which will be a shame.

 

[Bud]

We went through some of this last year. They proposed in monroe county making vessels in an anchorage move at least 3 miles every 90 days. Then they added a last minute requirement before the law would go into effect that Monroe county would have to install 100 new moorings within 1 mile of shore first. They have completed the study for where they are going to put the moorings (i have seen it). Now we are waiting for the moorings. I am going from memory so my numbers might be off a little. Monroe county removed 103 abandoned vessels from Florida Keys waters last year for the bargain price of $273,570

 

[psneeld]

There is already a wall on the book that would allow them to address this issue. it is the proof of propulsion law. Where law enforcement can make you prove that your boat can power itself. I don't know why you feel like we need more confusing legislation. And I don't know why you hate our community

What community is that he hates?

For those interested in reading that propulsion law, I believe this is it and in effect.

68D-15.002 : Effective Means of Propulsion for Safe Navigation - Florida Administrative Rules, Law, Code, Register - FAC, FAR, eRulemaking

flrules.org

Good rule for derelicts, not so good for homesteader boaters with OK vessels.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

I just realized that to other group that wants no restrictions have change some verbiage. Did you see it?

From "Derelicts" to " Wet Storage"

 

[mvweebles]

The dues from neither association are used to cover lobbying efforts. Both the MTOA and the AGLCA conduct a separate fund raising drive to pay for the lobbyists.

Where the money comes from is a difference without a distinction. The AGLCA presents themselves as representing 10,000 cruisers. Frankly, if I were a contributor, I would be fine with their lobbying for anchor rights. BoatUS does the same although their position has shifted in recent years as the squatters have become more problematic.

There is already a wall on the book that would allow them to address this issue. it is the proof of propulsion law. Where law enforcement can make you prove that your boat can power itself. I don't know why you feel like we need more confusing legislation. And I don't know why you hate our community

A lot to unpack here. There may be a law on the books that addresses the issue, but addressing it and resolving it are very different things. The propulsion requirement carries a high adminstrative overhead and is easily circumvented and is effectively unenforceable. The ALA carries high adminstrative overhead and is easily circumvented and is also likewise uneforceable. The restriction on liveaboard carries a high adminstrative burden and is easily circumvented and is unenforceable.

Seeing a theme here? The compromise laws folks like AGLCA have advocated for years share one important quality: they don't work because they were designed to be too difficult to enforce. Why would they do that? I'm all ears because it seems like they want to defend the squatters. They profess support for time limits but only if the limits are difficult to enforce.

My dearly departed father used to say "There are 1000 ways to say 'NO' but only one way to say yes." These compromise laws remind me of Service Level Agreements for Internet (or Cable TV or cell service or fill-in-the-blank). "We guarantee 99% uptime!!!." But when you read the fine print, you have to go through all sorts of hoops to claim a tiny credit. Heck, our Internet was out for 10-days during Hurricane Helene and we had to prove it was non-operational to claim a pittance credit.

To my eyes, you either think there's a problem with anchor-outs in Florida or you don't. I have no idea how anyone who's been to these anchorages can say "Nothing to see here..." but I suppose they're out there. If you agree there's a problem today, then you have to agree the solutions have not been effective. Just popping off about "Enforce the laws that are out there" is a canned talking point from a lobbyist who has never thought through enforcement or talked to the marine sheriff patrols or talked to actual cruisers. Communities really, really want this solved. To say they have adequate laws but are not using them is ridiculous. I've been to town meetings and listened to sheriff's describe how they're powerless to do much except check for an anchor light.

@motion30, you'll have to be more specific about which community I hate. Pretty rude comment but given the emotions around this topic, I'll ignore it.

Peter

 

[Don L]

I just realized that to other group that wants no restrictions have change some verbiage. Did you see it?

From "Derelicts" to " Wet Storage"

I don't feel derelicts and wet storage anchor boats are the same. It is pretty easy going down the ICW to tell which is which

 

[Helmsman]

Where the money comes from is a difference without a distinction. The AGLCA presents themselves as representing 10,000 cruisers. Frankly, if I were a contributor, I would be fine with their lobbying for anchor rights. BoatUS does the same although their position has shifted in recent years as the squatters have become more problematic.

Peter

Peter,

Then why did you bring it up? I was just responding to your incorrect assumption that it came from dues.

 

[mvweebles]

Peter,

Then why did you bring it up? I was just responding to your incorrect assumption that it came from dues.

Was it really an incorrect assumptions?

1. Kim Russo yesterday stated she was representing AGLCA​

2. During her Podcast 2-weeks ago, she said AGLCA had hired lobbyists​

3. In the Lobbyist disclosure for HB481, three lobbyists indicated they were working for AGLCA (not MTOA or any other organization).​

What exactly did I get incorrect? It doesn't reallly make a difference, but as long as we're nitpicking, I am curious.

Peter

 

[Bud]

(3)(a) Monroe County is designated as an anchoring limitation area within which no less than once every 90 days each vessel anchored within Monroe County on waters of this state within 10 linear nautical miles of a public mooring field or a designated anchoring area must pull anchor and be moved from its location using the vessel’s propulsion system and be reanchored in a new location. The new location must be:

1. 1. No less than one-half linear nautical mile from the vessel’s starting location. A vessel may not be reanchored within one-half linear nautical mile from the vessel’s starting location for at least 90 days; or
2. 2. In a different designated anchoring area. A vessel may not be reanchored in its originating designated anchoring area for at least 90 days after anchoring within a new designated anchoring area.

(b) The commission, in consultation with Monroe County and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, shall establish by rule designated anchoring areas throughout the county. The designated anchoring areas must:

1. 1. Specify a maximum vessel draft for each area;
2. 2. Be created only in locations where the water depth is sufficient to allow vessels whose drafts are less than the area’s specified maximum vessel draft to navigate into and out of the areas without grounding or stranding;
3. 3. Not be located over coral reefs or other sensitive fish or wildlife habitat, to the maximum extent practicable, as determined by the commission;
4. 4. Not be located in an area subject to ongoing hazardous water currents or tides or containing navigational hazards; and
5. 5. Not be located within navigational channels, setbacks established by the United States Army Corps of Engineers associated with federal channels, areas where anchoring is prohibited pursuant to s. 327.4109, or any other lawfully established areas that prohibit anchoring.

(c) Paragraph (a) does not apply to vessels moored to approved and permitted moorings.

(d) A vessel upon the waters of this state and within Monroe County for which the owner or occupant has established the vessel as a domicile in accordance with s. 222.17 is exempt from paragraph (a) until at least 100 new moorings are available for public use within 1 mile of the Key West Bight City Dock. Until such time, the commission shall designate the area within 1 mile of the Key West Bight City Dock as a priority for the investigation and removal of derelict vessels.

 

[mvweebles]

(3)(a) Monroe County is designated as an anchoring limitation area within which no less than once every 90 days each vessel anchored within Monroe County on waters of this state within 10 linear nautical miles of a public mooring field or a designated anchoring area must pull anchor and be moved from its location using the vessel’s propulsion system and be reanchored in a new location. The new location must be:

1. 1. No less than one-half linear nautical mile from the vessel’s starting location. A vessel may not be reanchored within one-half linear nautical mile from the vessel’s starting location for at least 90 days; or
2. 2. In a different designated anchoring area. A vessel may not be reanchored in its originating designated anchoring area for at least 90 days after anchoring within a new designated anchoring area.

(b) The commission, in consultation with Monroe County and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, shall establish by rule designated anchoring areas throughout the county. The designated anchoring areas must:

1. 1. Specify a maximum vessel draft for each area;
2. 2. Be created only in locations where the water depth is sufficient to allow vessels whose drafts are less than the area’s specified maximum vessel draft to navigate into and out of the areas without grounding or stranding;
3. 3. Not be located over coral reefs or other sensitive fish or wildlife habitat, to the maximum extent practicable, as determined by the commission;
4. 4. Not be located in an area subject to ongoing hazardous water currents or tides or containing navigational hazards; and
5. 5. Not be located within navigational channels, setbacks established by the United States Army Corps of Engineers associated with federal channels, areas where anchoring is prohibited pursuant to s. 327.4109, or any other lawfully established areas that prohibit anchoring.

(c) Paragraph (a) does not apply to vessels moored to approved and permitted moorings.

(d) A vessel upon the waters of this state and within Monroe County for which the owner or occupant has established the vessel as a domicile in accordance with s. 222.17 is exempt from paragraph (a) until at least 100 new moorings are available for public use within 1 mile of the Key West Bight City Dock. Until such time, the commission shall designate the area within 1 mile of the Key West Bight City Dock as a priority for the investigation and removal of derelict vessels.

So how is this law enforced? Presumption of innocense suggests that police must prove the vessel has not moved versus the boater proving he did move. That's a steep hill to climb unless there's a cop watching 24/7. How do you respond to "Yea, I pulled up anchor last Saturday morning at 2AM, went 10-miles and was back by 6AM." Liveaboards lie about their residential status, why not this?

This is why these laws have been so difficult to enforce.

Peter

 

[Bud]

So how is this law enforced? Presumption of innocense suggests that police must prove the vessel has not moved versus the boater proving he did move. That's a steep hill to climb unless there's a cop watching 24/7. How do you respond to "Yea, I pulled up anchor last Saturday morning at 2AM, went 10-miles and was back by 6AM." Liveaboards lie about their residential status, why not this?

This is why these laws have been so difficult to enforce.

Peter

Well they have not been enforcing it yet because they don't have the mooring field in yet. But they leave it up to FWC to spell out the details of how they are going to enforce, They are publishing different documents for public comment, so far just doing the boundaries and details of the designated anchorage areas. FWC seeks public comment on proposed designated anchoring areas in Monroe County.

 

[Jklotz]

When it comes right down to it very few in FL govt/towns/cities care about anchored boats except getting rid of them. Some of the mooring fields are important to those locations because they provide workers for the lower cost workers.

I disagree. Boaters bring big bucks to FL, so much so the governor was looking to pass a bill aimed at reducing LEO stops of boaters without cause just last week.

 

[Helmsman]

Was it really an incorrect assumptions?

1. Kim Russo yesterday stated she was representing AGLCA​

2. During her Podcast 2-weeks ago, she said AGLCA had hired lobbyists​

3. In the Lobbyist disclosure for HB481, three lobbyists indicated they were working for AGLCA (not MTOA or any other organization).​

What exactly did I get incorrect? It doesn't reallly make a difference, but as long as we're nitpicking, I am curious.

Peter

Actually, it was an incorrect assumption stated as a fact.

Here is your quote in the OP: “A good chunk of member dues go to paying for lobbyists ….”

By the way, I am not nitpicking at all. Having read many of your posts over the past few years, I know that you value good quality, correct information. You provide much of that yourself in your extremely knowledgeable post history about boating. I have always appreciated learning from your posts. Reading them is like a primer to owning a boat, and the work necessary to bring it to and keep in great condition.

I thought that clarifying that dues aren’t used to pay for the lobbying effort is something you would want to see corrected and you would appreciate knowing that. It was, after all, part of your description of AGLCA efforts in this matter, and wasn’t too minor for you to assert in the first place.

 

[Don L]

I disagree. Boaters bring big bucks to FL, so much so the governor was looking to pass a bill aimed at reducing LEO stops of boaters without cause just last week.

Yes boaters in MARINAS bring in big bucks...................for the marinas. We already have a law to reduce LEO stops so signing a new one is just distraction. I have spent months on anchor and in moorings field in Fl over the last 8 years. In the big picture anchored and moored boats hardy matter for the money they spend and I say this as an upper end anchored/moored boat money spender.

 

[mvweebles]

Actually, it was an incorrect assumption stated as a fact.

Here is your quote in the OP: “A good chunk of member dues go to paying for lobbyists …

Fiar enough. I was able to edit my original post to read

"The State required disclosure shows AGLCA has three lobbyists engaged for this Bill."

To wrap up my thoughts, what struck me when I was in the hallway after the meeting is I really didn't think there was a big difference between the AGCLA position and Sec 1 of HB481. I cannot fathom why they objected to it so much except to speculate that they just object to anything that restricts anchoring in any manner - the old "Two legs Bad" approach.

I'm told getting this through the Senate will be more difficult. Given what I've learned in this thread about ALA and the crazy permutations, maybe the ultimate bill will be some sort of impossible to enforce Frankenstein bill that doesn't work.

It's my personal opinion that AGLCA is not part of the solution. They have their head in the sand concerning the issues of liveaboards. Possible time will tell I have my head in the sand. Come up to Tallahassee and he heard!

Peter