FL is voting to ban anchoring today

[sabreline]

Kiwijohn is correct in stating that we boaters must take some of the blame. As a boater AND a waterfront property owner, I see both sides of the issue. There is a sailboat that has been anchored jn the middle of the channel near our house for more than 2 years. The name, hailing pirt and numbers have been removed. We are working through the system to have this boat removed, towed, sunk, blown up, whatever. How do you suppose we will react when the next boat anchors? To suggest that the answer is to allow anchoring for 1 night doesn't work-you don't know that someone plans on abandoning their boat when they first anchor. Yoj may resent people who buy waterfront t property but do you want people abandoning their cars on your street?

[zstine]

Originally Posted by sabreline

... To suggest that the answer is to allow anchoring for 1 night doesn't work-you don't know that someone plans on abandoning their boat when they first anchor. ..

True you don't know that the will violate the law when they drop anchor. But as soon as that boat sits for several days, it would be a much easier task to get it removed if there is a clear time limit. The law can also state that the vessel can be seized by the state/town, who could then auction it off to make $$. That seems like a better stance then to just eliminate anchoring.

[sabreline]

Originally Posted by zstine

True you don't know that the will violate the law when they drop anchor. But as soon as that boat sits for several days, it would be a much easier task to get it removed if there is a clear time limit. The law can also state that the vessel can be seized by the state/town, who could then auction it off to make $$. That seems like a better stance then to just eliminate anchoring.

Good ideas there. If the law would actually work that way, I would be in favor. But that STILL puts the onus on the property owners to monitor the situation.

[Island Time O25]

Another situation where unwillingness to enforce existing laws somehow compels the lawmakers to come up with new ones without even attempting to fund compliance with existing laws.

And I bet you there will be enforcement only if the waterfront property owner has more clout that the owner of the boat anchored in front if his house.

[mrm]

Originally Posted by sabreline

Good ideas there. If the law would actually work that way, I would be in favor. But that STILL puts the onus on the property owners to monitor the situation.

Sure, and on who the onus should be, please tell?
After all, it seems it is the waterfront property owners desire to have an idyllic wiew over waters they do not own.

It is analogous to local communities in low height housing areas not wanting a skyscraper in their neighbourhood (on land they do not own). It is their interest to monitor plans of a local council's planning office for future development plans.

[ASD]

Originally Posted by sabreline

Kiwijohn is correct in stating that we boaters must take some of the blame. As a boater AND a waterfront property owner, I see both sides of the issue. There is a sailboat that has been anchored jn the middle of the channel near our house for more than 2 years. The name, hailing pirt and numbers have been removed. We are working through the system to have this boat removed, towed, sunk, blown up, whatever. How do you suppose we will react when the next boat anchors? To suggest that the answer is to allow anchoring for 1 night doesn't work-you don't know that someone plans on abandoning their boat when they first anchor. Yoj may resent people who buy waterfront t property but do you want people abandoning their cars on your street?

Good point. Interesting discussion on Richardson Bay in another thread.

[Hoosiersailor]

Originally Posted by sabreline

Kiwijohn is correct in stating that we boaters must take some of the blame. As a boater AND a waterfront property owner, I see both sides of the issue. There is a sailboat that has been anchored jn the middle of the channel near our house for more than 2 years. The name, hailing pirt and numbers have been removed. We are working through the system to have this boat removed, towed, sunk, blown up, whatever. How do you suppose we will react when the next boat anchors? To suggest that the answer is to allow anchoring for 1 night doesn't work-you don't know that someone plans on abandoning their boat when they first anchor. Yoj may resent people who buy waterfront t property but do you want people abandoning their cars on your street?

I will agree with you but it seems a little short sighted to punish everyone for this. Seems easy enough to put a big orange sticker on the boat giving them notice that the boat will be removed within XXX time. That's what they do with cars on the side of the road or abandoned.

[hellosailor]

sabreline-
Check your charts. If that boat is anchored in a channel, which doesn't mean "the way we all like to go" but means a legally designated and named channel on the charts, then it is in violation of federal law and possibly state law. The USCG has the authority to seize it and remove it from a designated channel, as an illegal obstruction to navigation.
Same process might apply to state authorities. The power to remove obstructions from named channels in navigable waterways is how they also are authorized to remove wrecks, and send the owner the bill for it.
No numbers, no nothing? Doesn't matter, they are still authorized to remove it. And technically, required to do so.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by Hoosiersailor

I will agree with you but it seems a little short sighted to punish everyone for this. Seems easy enough to put a big orange sticker on the boat giving them notice that the boat will be removed within XXX time. That's what they do with cars on the side of the road or abandoned.

"Seems" is the key word here.

You can't compare land-based LE with water-based LE activities. A big factor is the difference in numbers of LE personnel monitoring the water vs monitoring land. The second fact is the cost of removal of a boat vs. a car.

Yes, there are laws on the books to deal with derelict vessels. Without getting into the very subjective definition of derelict, just simply the cost to remove such a vessel can easily run into the 10's of thousands of dollars. (Float it, tow it, haul it out, cut it up and haul the debris. All environmentally safe.)

[mrm]

Originally Posted by DotDun

[...] just simply the cost to remove such a vessel can easily run into the 10's of thousands of dollars. (Float it, tow it, haul it out, cut it up and haul the debris. All environmentally safe.)

I think this is exaggerated quite a bit. What happens (at least here) with abandoned cars is they get moved to a parking area and left. Only ultimately, after a long time, when no owner is located and nobody claims the vehicle, it is sent to a wreckers yard and dismantled.

So, for abandoned moored/anchored boats, first steps are: tow, haul, store on land.

Besides, punishing all for actions of the few is simply unjust. Strange world..

On edit.. If money is an issue, I think that waterfront property owners should see no problem in paying an extra 'clean view' tax?

[AD28]

tens of thousands is quite reasonable. The below example is a 100-foot craft. That's looking like 500K according to the article.

http://keysnews.com/node/63713

It's far more expensive on water than on land, and I can't blame the taxpayers for reluctance to foot the bill

[Jason Flare]

It's always about money.

The landowners don't want boats so they've paid big bucks to support legislation.

If this passes, and you want to win this, you need to get a large group of boaters to commit to not going to FL and spending money. Then it needs to be quantified and publicized.

But they're smart enough to boil the frog slowly. We can survive in FL without the anchorages effected. And by the time the majority of anchorages are effected we'll think that restrictions are a normal part of traveling on the water.

There was an awesome post in a thread about a village in England that banned the few lorries that parked overnight. Businesses in town closed from the lack of revenue the drivers had been spending, a few drivers and one night at a time.

If people committed to stay out of FL for one year at a time, and could quantify it to lawmakers, the laws would change.

It's about money.

[a64pilot]

You know in Panama City, they are removing the derelicts, and it starts with an orange sticker, just like with a car.
It can be done, is being done, I don't know why not in S Fl.
Perhaps this is what the "at risk vessels legislation" will accomplish?

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

But they're smart enough to boil the frog slowly. We can survive in FL without the anchorages effected. And by the time the majority of anchorages are effected we'll think that restrictions are a normal part of traveling on the water.

I fear that is exactly where this is headed, before it's over we will be going from one KOA marina to another, just like the RV's do.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

You know in Panama City, they are removing the derelicts, and it starts with an orange sticker, just like with a car.
It can be done, is being done, I don't know why not in S Fl.
Perhaps this is what the "at risk vessels legislation" will accomplish?

Perhaps waterfront property owners in Panama City are not as wealthy and consequently don't have the clout of So. Fl. crowd.