Fishy anchoring situation

[Fortress]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

2Big2Small said it in a nutshell in post #56.

Gotta love the backpedalling in Fortress post following ! lol

Nope, just the very best safety advice!

Originally Posted by danielamartindm

Tidal shifts require a Bahamian Mooring, or some other multi-anchor plan. You simply can't set one anchor and leave and trust that it will reset every time; and whenever you reach the point of considering firearms to deal with a non-life threatening situation, it's time to avoid and move on.

+1

Compliments of US Sailing:

[2big2small]

Just for clarity’s sake, the graphic you posted does not illustrate a Bahamian mooring but it is usually simply refered to as ”anchoring on two anchors (in a V).” It isn’t adequate for tidal mooring and you will foul your rodes.

It is usually recommended for resisting high winds but isn’t actually that suitable for that purpose either since as your boat swings (aka sails) from left to right under the gusts all the load is applied on only one anchor at a time. If the wind shifts a little bit, then all the load is permanently on only one anchor.

So it’s no substitute for proper anchoring technique, which chiefly consists of using appropriate scope on good bottoms. However, if one anchor starts dragging then you still have the second one. But then again, in the worst case scenario both will drag and you’ll have a tangled mess so think twice before applying this technique. Using just one anchor is often the best guarantee for a clean escape when the proverbial excrement hits the fan. There’s no reason to assume that if one anchor drags a second one won’t.

With a well executed Bahamian mooring you put one anchor out in the direction of the current created by the outgoing tide, and the other in the direction of the current of the incoming tide, which are not necesseraly at 180 degrees, depending on the intricacies of the geography of the location. You join the two rodes together with reasonable tension, then attach a swivel and use a third line to go up to your bow. The goal is to have the swivel deep enough under water so it will easily clear your keel and rudder, even at low water, which will therefore never be fouled by either ground tackle. Now your boat can face the current with its bow in either direction whilst remaining pretty much exactly put.

Again, it’s easy to see why this setup is far from ideal for a quick escape and you should only apply it in very sheltered waters. And again, it’s no excuse for disrespecting proper scope rules or you may end up with a tangled mess of two dragging anchors, plus a swivel. Also note that it wont’resist high winds coming from other directions than those of the two anchors. So my advice is still to use only one anchor with an anchor drag alarm for the nights on condition that you’re going to be on board most of the time.

If you still want a Bahamian mooring, for example because the channel is very narrow, but you’re only staying for a night then you can ommit the swivel and attach both rodes directly to the bow. You may have to undo a couple of twists in the morning before departure.

Originally Posted by Fortress

Nope, just the very best safety advice!



+1

Compliments of US Sailing:

[Cheechako]

"motion activated game camera" They are poplar now.

[LLizzard]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

"motion activated game camera" They are poplar now.

Right, that's exactly what I was thinking. Heck, if Wi-Fi is available, you could send picks right too your phone.

[mr-canada]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

" This rabbit trail is actually listed on Google Maps as a road."
Right, what court will accept Gargoyle Maps as a legal source? None.

I honestly dont give a rats a** about the legality of the rabbit trail. Its the principle. This trail is used by residents mostly so their kids can play with eachother and they can visit eachothers houses. The fence is just an indication of a special kind of a**hole; my mention of it does not indicate any type of legal action I would be intending to take.

Maybe lay off the rum before you post, sailor. ;-)

Originally Posted by hellosailor

Right of navigation? Sure, if you are actually IN TRANSIT and have a legitimate NEED to park there. That means the crew are hospitalized, the engine is waiting for spares, there's a hurricane or blizzard forecast... some real pressing NEED. Not just "I need to go back to work for a week." Sorry, but you need to dig all the way back to legal sources for these things, not just what you've heard or think is good.

I have read the entire Act, for Canadian Law at least. Right of navigation for anchoring lasts 14 days here in Canada, for whatever "reasonable" need you may have. It could be for sleeping, that you can't find a proper moorage at a marina or federal port, it could be because you are drunk, have engine trouble, it doesn't matter.

This is why boats in False Creek are forced to move every 14 days. It's mostly to prove that they are not derelict abandoned vessels that may drift ashore, causing the lengthy process for someone to remove it; which can take months or years and avoid fuel spills.

Theres a big difference between leaving a boat at anchor for 6-12 months and practically abandoning it and moving it around and using it every weekend, leaving it unattended for only 5 days at a stretch and sailing it for 2-3 days a week.

Take the pee out of your corn flakes buddy.

[mr-canada]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

"motion activated game camera" They are poplar now.

I've contemplated just hiding out on the boat and having the harbour ferry show up and appear like I'm getting picked up. Seemingly the anchor was fouled the next morning after that when at anchor.

A game camera would not be a bad plan either, but with the window layout and tint it might be impossible to detect who is pulling an anchor if in a small boat and the game camera would be engaged very often with passing boats and the waves on the water.

[mr-canada]

Originally Posted by 2big2small

This is all paranoia in my humble opinion. There, I said the word. Why consider convoluted scenarios requiring ill human will and even more unlikely, actual nefarious action—yet somehow very inneficient action—to mess with your boat?

The pattern. 9 days solid holding even with fouled anchor, then 4 days solid holding without fouled anchor and dragging. Then 3 days solid holding and leave the boat and fouled anchor the moment I left.

The simple laws of physics apply in my paranoia.

An anchor at 7:1 scope that has dragged 700 metres would not be directly below the boat. Given a 7:1 scope at a depth of 18 metres that would indicate 126 metres of scope; if it were to drag that far with absolute certainty, even if completely dragging it would not be directly below the boat just by the weight of the anchor, even if it was skipping along the bottom.

Also given the good holding in the area, such a long drag the anchor would likely reset itself given how much chain and scope - but even if it didn't it wouldn't be directly below the boat.

Which means... someone pulled the anchor up, then dropped the whole rode and chain straight back down, leaving the anchor unset. It's frickin common sense.

[Smokeys Kitchen]

Originally Posted by 2big2small

+1

Secondly, and this is what I haven’t seen anyone else in this thread point out before, at some point you mention a scope of 7:1. If you let more rode out than most other boaters in this high traffic area then it is very likely that others have anchored over it and tripped your anchor, especially in low wind tidal situations where your rode ends up in a big S-shape or other curve on the bottom and other boaters have no clue of where your anchor is. It might very well have sat downwind from your boat on many occasions.

+1 on this explanation.

We anchored in Plumper Cove overnight this summer on our way up the Inside Passage. We stayed on the boat overnight.

Single anchor - no Bahamian moor. The current runs pretty well through the anchorage; the tide differential was @ 11 ft on the day we were there. We did not drag, but swung pretty well.

There were many boats in the Cove, both on moorings and anchored. At first, we ended up swinging closer to some boats than I liked so we reset the anchor. Some other boats ended up closer to me than I would have liked, but not bad enough to make me move. I talked to 2 of the other boats at anchor there and like me, they were in the 3:1 to 4:1 scope range; all chain rode.

No wind overnight; and I observed no nefarious occurrences while we were there.

Given what I have read in the posts here and my own experience there, I think the situation 2big2small described is the most likely scenario. If there was other information to go on, like photos or some witness, then that would be different; but outside that, I don't see anyone coming out to pull the anchor just for the view. Boats in this cove don't block the view of any houses there.

Just my 2c.

[mr-canada]

Originally Posted by Smokeys Kitchen

+1 on this explanation.

We anchored in Plumper Cove overnight this summer on our way up the Inside Passage. We stayed on the boat overnight.
[...]

There were many boats in the Cove, both on moorings and anchored. At first, we ended up swinging closer to some boats than I liked so we reset the anchor. Some other boats ended up closer to me than I would have liked, but not bad enough to make me move. I talked to 2 of the other boats at anchor there and like me, they were in the 3:1 to 4:1 scope range; all chain rode.

No wind overnight; and I observed no nefarious occurrences while we were there.

[...]

Boats in this cove don't block the view of any houses there.

Just my 2c.

I've anchored there (obviously) for both single nights as well as multi-day stays. The tides will swing you, but at night the winds die off as you correctly note. The tides are not severe (it's no Bay of Fundy) but at neap and spring tides you will obviously get more play.

I refer to my basic principles of physics I posted a few posts ago. A dragging anchor does not land directly below the boat on a 7:1 scope. I was quite far west in the cove, well away from the mooring buoys so as not to interfere with them but with enough depth and away from the shoal separating the islets from Keats.

Prudent anchoring dictates that the longer the scope, the less chance of a drag and fail to reset. This is getting to be a long thread, but I did mention I had someone check my boat when it was reported to be dragging and send me a picture, the boat was largely fine albeit a bit close to shore on a low spring tide, the boat had definitely moved and it wasn't the scope (I know because I pulled the anchor myself to reset it, it probably reset itself after dragging on the foul).

The key suspicious aspect of this is the ever faster "dragging" of the anchor and that the boat was reported as "adrift". 9 days no problem, then 3 days monitored and then in 2 and a half days dragging, then 3 days monitored and in 12 hours dragging.

In 3 days there are about 6 tides. If the anchor is going to drag then it would drag within the 6 tides, not the moment the boat is left unattended the very next morning.

It is quite odd that the anchor would never drag and would always reset when I was aboard for days and days at a time and once unattended it would drag ever faster. I bet if I had left it again it would have been dragging within a few hours.... hmmm.

I also spoke to some local lifelong boaters that said there are quite a few people in that bay who are very "cliquey". He anchored there and when he awoke there was three bumboats circling his mid sized tug, he told them to F-off and if they touched his boat he would be taking it out on him physically.

Lightning doesn't strike twice, or in my own personal case, three times.

The locals don't mind weekenders, but longer term they can get snakey. I'm not speaking of everyone on Keats Island, I'm certain almost all of them are nice, but there are a few jerks who want the park shut down to visitors so they can have it all to themselves.

This odd reaction to parks I have seen on the SC before. I was moored towards Port Mellon and when I asked some lady where I could drop my garbage, she went on a tirade about how it's "our beach for us" despite it being an SCRD park and lamenting about boats being parked there, how she had gone to the SCRD, the Coast Guard, and the RCMP to try to get them removed. When I clarified that below the high tide line it is federal crown territory and that it is a public park at the shoreline, she was a bit taken aback.

I grew up on the coast and find most of the people very nice. But some tend to think that public land is "theirs" as 10 months of the year very few people even visit there due to weather except for locals. I suspect that this anchor fouling misadventure is a similar case.

[mr-canada]

Originally Posted by Fortress

Nope, just the very best safety advice!



+1

Compliments of US Sailing:

I used this technique first time I anchored there. It is an excellent anchoring technique for fighting the wind, but long term, the two anchors end up fouling if the wind changes or in low wind conditions with the tides.

As an emergency anchoring technique to hold out against a storm, it is second to none as you double your holding power.

[2big2small]

Originally Posted by mr-canada

I used this technique first time I anchored there. It is an excellent anchoring technique for fighting the wind, but long term, the two anchors end up fouling if the wind changes or in low wind conditions with the tides.

As an emergency anchoring technique to hold out against a storm, it is second to none as you double your holding power.

In my post #62 I explained that the load ends up being on only one anchor at a time (and given the angle it is even somewhat higher than if you’d be straight behind a single anchor). It’s a very common misconception that this is much safer, and an easy one to be tricked into believing because your gut feeling says that two anchors must be twice as good as one. But it is only marginally better and often not worth the extra risk of not being able to make a clean escape.

Originally Posted by mr-canada

A dragging anchor does not land directly below the boat on a 7:1 scope.

What makes you believe that in a low wind situation with tidal currents your boat could not possibly end up on top of your anchor after it dragged?

As for the odds of the dragging happening several times in the same location, if it happens once, then yeah, the odds are pretty high that it will happen again there, nothing extraordinary here either. You are succombing to the gambler’s falacy if you think something extraordinary happened.

I don’t feel I can add anything meaningful to this thread anymore so I’m hereby taking my leave and wish you the best with the game cameras, shot guns, heat detectors, drones, mine fields, and mind controlled sharks. (No offence meant, just blowing off some frustration of preaching to the deaf.)

[MLOI]

A couple of thoughts, not directed at anyone.

We spent a couple of months this year anchored for days to a week at a time in a location where we could see our anchor on the bottom in 10m of water. (Yes, it was great)

First, after an uncomfortable night in 30 gusting 40, on 5 to 1 rode, I jumped into the water and swam out to check our anchor. I swam out, around a little pile of broken coral, and back to the anchor. Which was 5m off our beam.

So after a night of 40 knot gusts, where I had checked and managed chafe probably 6 times, we had held on a 2.5 to 1 scope against some rubble. I had not been able to pull any slack in the snubber during the night. So finding the anchor directly under the boat would never surprise me at all. If the the current is only a couple of knots, then some excited mud would probably hold a chain rode enough for the anchor to end up under the boat. Unless the chain was in a pile on the bottom, Id think nothing of this.

Second, we have a fortress as our second anchor. When we tested it using our normal process of backing down, then taking the strain up to 2000 rpm, it was almost completely buried. I'd be surprised if an all chain rode at 4 to 1 or better even pulled on the shank in most conditions, and stunned if it was able to get caught under the shank and unseating the anchor. The point where the chain is shackled to the shank was buried, it was only the top of the shank that was visible.

I prefer a rocna because it sets easily and quickly, but if I could dive on the anchor in advance, Id prefer the fortress in a blow. (Actually Id use both in series, with the Fortress the one to provide the ultimate holding when the rocna was pulled out)

I have a 10 year old boy with a powerfull slingshot. No one anchors too close or disturbs our anchor...

Mike

[Jim Cate]

I have a 10 year old boy with a powerfull slingshot. No one anchors too close or disturbs our anchor...

Ohh nooo, not a slingshot, Mike. Illegal in Oz, aren't they? (Always amuses us when the Customs chaps here ask if we have one on board when we check in!).

Jim

[billknny]

All that needs saying is said right here:

Why Do So Many People Believe in Conspiracy Theories? | Time.com

But sometimes it is fun to poke the dog to see him jump. Just be sure you know that's what you are doing and do not confuse it with having a rational discussion.

[MLOI]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Ohh nooo, not a slingshot, Mike. Illegal in Oz, aren't they? (Always amuses us when the Customs chaps here ask if we have one on board when we check in!).

Jim

It varies state by state actually, as to how they are treated.
Vic and NSW they are illegal, Tas and QLD they are OK. There is an argument about free passage between states that would probably let us get away with having them in the other states, but I'd prefer not to have the conversation.

"Bait throwers" which look a lot like a slingshot are more legal as well.


We treat them with the same respect we would an air rifle or spear gun, so it has never been a problem.

It's a bit like the 10 YO driving the dinghy. Technically illegal, but useful and not a problem if done responsibly.

Mike