FWC Derelict Enforcement Marathon

[RaymondR]

Not the U.S. but Maryborough on the east coast of Australia.


A converted wooden trawler was tied up overnight at the public jetty and hung up on a falling tide until the stern submerged and the vessel sunk. The maritime authorities placed an isolated danger mark buoy on it.


The city council has decided that the best solution to the navigation hazard created for people wanting to use the public jetty is the remove the jetty.


At various places around the Australian coast, usually offshore from population centres, there are artificial reefs created by sinking old ships, boats and even aircraft. They were created to provide recreational facilities for amateur divers and fishermen. Surely the fine State of Florida has similar facilities.


The disposal solution for many derelict craft might be to have a couple of derelict craft disposal days each year where the owners can take them out to these places and sink them thereby contributing to the general public good.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by Cadence

Amen and good for the FWC. I believe SCDNR is probably hogtied by politics or resources.

This past weekend I noticed a "new" sailboat anchored around the bend. A while later, it was towed to the boat ramp and a guy was there trying to get it on a trailer. I went over and talked to the guy.

Apparently, it had broken loose and was up against a bridge. The USCG found it, got the numbers off it and contacted him and told him to take care of it. He decided to scrap it and was in the process of doing so.

I give him credit for doing the right thing but I don't understand why the USCG or other agencies can't find the owners of the other boats and force them to dispose of them properly.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

... the hypocrisy of the crypto-socialists "let's have the gov't solve all MY problems" masquerading as the keepers of the "civilized society" galls me the most. The last time I checked we live in a free capitalist society (supposedly) so the issue of anyone or anything which offends someone else should be solved not by dragging the state into it on one's side but to use one's $$ to solve the issue. They should buy those they consider derelicts out and while at it have that buyout contract prohibit them from ever returning to that area. And if the derelicts do return i.e. break that contract, then and only then ask the gov't, i.e. the courts, to uphold it. And that's IMO is the ONLY way to deal with this issue in a civilized society.

And if those complaining can't or won't spend THEIR own $$ dealing with the issue which only/so concerns them they should not have ANY right to bring the mighty state to solve that issue for them, especially at the expense of the victims of their "Maria Antoinette meets Karl Marx" worldview.

Coastal waterways are just another part of public infrastructure; you can't exactly park your broken down RV wherever you like and live there, either. And if you have a house or property, you have to keep it up.

Truly derelict boats in a waterway are a problem for anyone on/near the water. Potential hazards to navigation, present or future sources of pollution, eyesores, and a black eye to the rest of us boaters, rich or poor, who do keep our boats seaworthy and are responsible users of the waterways.

From the reports here, it sounds like the enforcement has been reasonable so far; let's see how it plays out.

[Meacenas]

Interesting thread for sure. The rich versus the poor, the 'real' sailors versus the wanna-be's, the careless versus the caring. This is what freedom in America is made of.
Being an avid reader of the forums, my girl and I find many a subject for our daily discussions about our plans to spend our future cruising. In our step by step approach we take a lot of comments here as being knowledgeable and lean on that expertise to make our decisions on how to best find our way forward.
A recent post by a long time member pretty much summed up the kneejerk elitist attitude of some sailors.." you would not buy a car from 1977 so why would you buy a 1977 boat ?" That answer was for us, how so many 'poor' people are viewed by the rich. Sort of a variation on the 'let them eat cake' answer. The current thread is a good example of that. Of the reply's, a good portion of the owners of +100k boats were the most vocal on 'string em up', who cares if they are poor, they are an eyesore, a hazard and we should not have to tolerate these poor shmucks, party line.
I bring this up because it is our idea that we will, in the next year or two, buy a good sized 'fix it' vessel. Why? Because we have the ambition, skills and money to rebuild and maintain a sub par vessel. And we feel that in todays market driven, severe consumer based economics, there are way more than enough aged and almost forgotten boats out there already. We don't want to add to the problem of turning our waterways in a clutter, but to do the reverse in a small way.
Will there be a problem with parking our non-yachty 'boat while we rebuild it? Will there be somebody in a white yachty cap and pressed duckys standing in the sawdust telling us we should be headed to the breakers because we are interfering with his view?
Admittedly, there are quite a few real derelicts that pose a hazard to the environment as well as navigation. The problem needs to be addressed but you just cannot paint the whole sub millionaire field with a broad brush because you have more money than the people that bought a boat, gave up when they found that the glowing sunsets and sandy beaches is far removed from the harsh realities of oily bilges, and hours of sanding to make it happen.
Case by case, .....

[Island Time O25]

Let's be honest and call this issue for what it really is - gentrification in progress. For decades Lower Keys were "end of the line" for many on the lower social-economic scale precisely because they were far away from the "civilized society" and "the law" and no one paid much attention to their funky haggard residents. But as that funkiness became a tourist magnet and locals started cashing in by selling old dilapidated houses to the developers and wealthy winter residents the real funkiness started to get on those newcomers' nerves. Sure they would still like some funkiness but in a controlled, manageable way such as what was done to Haight-Ashbury or Provincetown - franchised corporate funkiness. But definitely they do not want the real thing now that they sunked some serious $$ into their mansions and other development projects. So one way or another under whatever pretext those too poor or too free to fit into the newcomers' image of a respected citizen-neighbor will be made unwelcome and eventually shoved off someplace else. Not the first time this happened and I'm sure not the last time.

[PhiSig1071]

Originally Posted by Sun and Moon

327.4107 Vessels at risk of becoming derelict on waters of this state.—
...
(2) An officer of the commission or of a law enforcement agency specified in s. 327.70 may determine that a vessel is at risk of becoming derelict if any of the following conditions exist
a) The vessel is taking on or has taken on water without an effective means to dewater.
(b) Spaces on the vessel that are designed to be enclosed are incapable of being sealed off or remain open to the elements for extended periods of time.
(c) The vessel has broken loose or is in danger of breaking loose from its anchor.
(d) The vessel is left or stored aground unattended in such a state that would prevent the vessel from getting underway, is listing due to water intrusion, or is sunk or partially sunk.




The guy they arrested may be guilty of various charges, including pollution charges, but the conditions cited by the officer don't match the Florida definition of derelict vessel.

You have misspoke. The conditions mentioned in the article, which was the information relayed to the writer by the officers, may not match the Florida definition of a derelict vessel. But you have no way of knowing if these were the only conditions actually cited by the officer, there may have been many more, which were more applicable, but they were not mentioned by the officer to the writer of the article.

The information in the article concerning what the officer "cited" would be hearsay in a court of law.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

Let's be honest and call this issue for what it really is - gentrification in progress. For decades Lower Keys were "end of the line" for many on the lower social-economic scale precisely because they were far away from the "civilized society" and "the law" and no one paid much attention to their funky haggard residents. But as that funkiness became a tourist magnet and locals started cashing in by selling old dilapidated houses to the developers and wealthy winter residents the real funkiness started to get on those newcomers' nerves. Sure they would still like some funkiness but in a controlled, manageable way such as what was done to Haight-Ashbury or Provincetown - franchised corporate funkiness. But definitely they do not want the real thing now that they sunked some serious $$ into their mansions and other development projects. So one way or another under whatever pretext those too poor or too free to fit into the newcomers' image of a respected citizen-neighbor will be made unwelcome and eventually shoved off someplace else. Not the first time this happened and I'm sure not the last time.

Agreed.

Except that the 'too poor too free' can simply get their boats or homes in order and avoid being seen unwelcome. Yes, we can. Or was it just a catchphrase?

Why clean up my boat if I can blame everything on gentrification and the heartless society?

Uh?

It is the owners' choice how their boat looks like and whether this is still a boat or rather a dirty and decaying object - unsightly and dangerous to sailors, citizens and the environment alike.

Like you, I am all for free and poor. But soap and brush make plenty of sense to me too.

If we all clean up our own mess there is very little left to be done with taxpayers' money.

Agreed?

b.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

Let's be honest and call this issue for what it really is - gentrification in progress. ..............

BS, pure BS. Can you not understand or do you choose to not understand?

It's about removing junk from public view. Nothing more. You couldn't park your junk car on a public street and live in it, why is your junk boat on a public waterway any different?

Just like the car, if you keep moving, it's OK. You just can't park either and live in it.

[Cottontop]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

At various places around the Australian coast, usually offshore from population centres, there are artificial reefs created by sinking old ships, boats and even aircraft. They were created to provide recreational facilities for amateur divers and fishermen. Surely the fine State of Florida has similar facilities.

The disposal solution for many derelict craft might be to have a couple of derelict craft disposal days each year where the owners can take them out to these places and sink them thereby contributing to the general public good.

Artificial reefs are created in the US, also, but it's not trivial. First, any pollutant has to be completely removed (how do you get every drop of oil, grease out of an engine, scrub tanks, etc? Even paint might be a no-no). Then, you have to be sure that when the vessel breaks up, as it eventually will, nothing floats to the surface and becomes a hazard. How do you do that with a fiberglass boat?

[Cottontop]

Originally Posted by Meacenas

This is what freedom in America is made of.

It's nice to think that the US is about freedom, and to some extent it's true.

But I think it's more useful to remember that, with a few exceptions, the majority rules.

[SV DestinyAscen]

You call it gentrification - I call it urban renewal/development.

There are people who contribute nothing to their environment - create eyesores, depreciate public health/create navigation hazards - all because of some nonsense idea that public space belongs to all and therefore you can piss all over it.

Let's be real - you have to evaluate every nuisance claim with a eye for reason/balancing act between personal freedom and social good. Making it a big fuss without finding out the speicifcs of the local action is just reactionary nonsense.

[dsdmedic]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Not the U.S. but Maryborough on the east coast of Australia.

The disposal solution for many derelict craft might be to have a couple of derelict craft disposal days each year where the owners can take them out to these places and sink them thereby contributing to the general public good.

I suspect the problem with that would be the cost of getting those vessels ready to sink. The State of Florida has created artificial reefs out of vessels before, yes - including up to an old aircraft carrier. However, the cost to prepare the vessels for that is not insubstantial. All traces of grease, fuel, and oil have to be completely removed - that means not just emptying the tanks, but probably pressure washing them, if not removing them entirely. Same with the engine, if there is one. For even a small recreational vessel, especially one in derelict condition, how likely do you think it is that the owner will have the willingness (or resources) to get that sort of work done, to an EPA (state or federal) standard, prior to the boat being sunk?

Overall, it's a promising idea... but it would require some real funding to prepare the vessels -- and if that doesn't come, I don't think it'd get (m)any takers.

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by Meacenas

SNIP

I bring this up because it is our idea that we will, in the next year or two, buy a good sized 'fix it' vessel. Why? Because we have the ambition, skills and money to rebuild and maintain a sub par vessel.

SNIP

As someone with more than ten posts at CF who has lived and sailed in Florida since 1954 I am always amused by folks from New York who comment on the situation here. And not just from New York but anyone North of the Cape.

First thing I would note is a lot of folks thought they had the ambition, skills, and money to fix up a boat only to find out, sometimes after spending way more than they thought, that all they had was a boat that needed more fixing up. If the truth be known even folks who spent big bucks on much newer boats are often shocked on how much they have to spend to keep them maintained.

The result is there are way too many boats that have been poorly maintained for enough time that the boats have too many problems to fix. When that is added to the fact that some folks are simply using a boat as a cheap flop house bed that is floating the number of problems increase.

Some of it is economic. Folks with more money sometimes don't want poor folks too close to them. But this ignores the rest of the story. Often times someone living on a flop house boat has problems other than money. Drug use, alcohol use, mental health issues, physical health issues, or simply advancing age may inhibit a person from earning enough money to consider other options. Not to mention there may be a combination of more than one of these issues.

Another part of the economic problem is the law of supply and demand. There is simply more demand for places to keep a boat than there is a supply. The result is those that control the supply allocate the space to the highest bidder. Long time what I will call for the sake of argument "rich boaters" have been lamenting for some time the destruction of marinas where boats they use to keep their boats so high rise condos could be built. These "rich boaters" were then forced to move to places which use to be the haunts of "less rich boaters".

To make matters worse many of the poor boaters simply don't have the ability to move their boat. It has no motor or sail. I have seen boats in BKH that have not been moved for years. One day I was drinking coffee in my salon when I had to get up and fend off a 30 foot sail boat being towed by an under powered inflatable trying to move it from one ball to the anchorage because the owner could no longer afford the cost of a mooring ball.

Bottom line is there are simply too many boats of all types and not enough room for them.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by rwidman

(...)

Just like the car, if you keep moving, it's OK. You just can't park either and live in it.

But other than a private parkway or a public road, one should be free to park it and live in it.

I mean live in it, not throw their garbage everywhere and **** in the roadside bush.

We should be free to stop and live where we please, as long as we do not bother others or create danger to someone.

If we are not, there is no freedom left.

b.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by barnakiel;2243929[B

]But other than a private parkway or a public road[/B], one should be free to park it and live in it.

I mean live in it, not throw their garbage everywhere and **** in the roadside bush.

We should be free to stop and live where we please, as long as we do not bother others or create danger to someone.

If we are not, there is no freedom left.

b.

The cited exclusion leave one wondering where that "free to park it" might be???