What if we had "intent" in anchoring laws?

[Sandero]

I second the comments of Tayana42. Schooner Chandlery/ Brenda offers an excellent analysis. Thank you.

Clearly we have the convergence in the same geographic coordinates of disparate interests. The feds have given jurisdiction to the states who cede it to local governments largely pressured by their wealthiest waterfront taxpayers.

Years ago I tried to figure out how a typical Long Island Sound harbor was filled with private moorings and laws restricting anchoring. Not only that... there were commercial interests which controlled scores or hundreds of these moorings turning the commons into a means to make profit. Many harbors are not served or well served by a bay constable or harbor master who would police and perhaps deal with town transient moorings. It's very chaotic. For a responsible boat owner who is not a local property owner it can be daunting to deal with all these "laws" and regulations. But what are the equitable alternatives? Should the commons be a source of profit for private interests? Can private for profit business lock out boaters from anchoring access on the commons? Maybe there are too many boats? The shore is a limited resource... but the number of people and boats is growing. How can you limit access to the commons? Is it to be first come first serve? A lottery? Many businesses if they are not growing are dying..

I have no answers... only questions.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Nothing wrong with living anchored permanently, I think. As long as the boat is not a danger and not abandoned.

I can hear your call re abandoned and derelict boats. But this is where local administration should step in and a) demand the boat be taken care of or b) remove the boat and charge the owner for removal. Such boats should be either auctioned off (early!) or else recycled.

Apparently, where you live, the local administration is useless.

b.

I am not from that side of the pound but maybe I can add something.

I believe that what you say will only possible or make sense on non crowded waters. If you are anchored on the middle of nowhere or where there is always plenty of place it seems alright to me and I don't see a problem but if you are occupying permanently a place on a crowded anchorage that has no more places you are not allowing others of using it...and you are in public waters that belong to all.

It seems to me that you are abusing your right to public waters using them as if they were private.

Maybe I am more sensitive because on the med there are a lot of crowded anchorages and some sailors, if they were allowed, would use them permanently as a mooring place. In several places you are only allowed to stay for some days and the last time I anchored in front of Ibiza they only allowed you to stay one day. In the morning the police would come and everybody will had to go away. You could return on the late afternoon.

Not defending this for everywhere. Pretty much a extreme situation on very crowded waters but in any place where the use of public waters constitutes an abuse, retiring the right of others to use them too, I believe measures will be needed to enforce the right of all to use that anchorage. The measures will depend of each case and situation.

[Skuzzlebutt]

"Your freedom to live as you wish ends the second it impacts others freedom to live as they wish. At that point, the authorities have to look at what is reasonable and you taking permanent possession of a piece of the waterway isn't fair or reasonable to everyone else who has a legitimate use for that piece of the waterway."

'Impacts'? There's a new way of putting and old truth. Sorry, but most everything one, including you, does 'impacts' others living the way they wish. I think I know what you are trying to say, but your phrase just doesn't quite cut it.

As for "taking permanent possession of a piece of the waterway", I doubt that the 300 or so square feet of ocean my vessel occupies is depriving many of their use of the waterway. In fact, I dare say that if I wasn't here, perhaps one or two jetski craft per month might cross the spot. Trust me, they have no trouble missing my, and other's, crafts by more than 50' with their troublesome wakes. No, we don't insist they go elsewhere ... they have as much right as do I.

If the matter in question is a crowded piece of 'aquascape', then yes, some regulations are in order. But when we (Florida, specifically) are talking about hundreds of square miles of anchorable ocean/gulf, then blanket laws are indeed not the solution.

I'm all for derelict boats being removed. In the Keys, the FWC officers regularly make onboard inspections, and cite those missing operable sails and/or motors. I think they are right in so doing. But forbidding all anchored vessels because it 'impacts' the view from one's property is not.

[zboss]

I really have to wonder... who most benefits from these anchoring laws? I say... follow the money.

The marinas and those that rent mooring balls benefit the most. So while I would say that the complaints are coming from these land owners, I'm betting if you follow the money you will find they are someone connected to large marina companies.

Originally Posted by Polux

It seems to me that you are abusing your right to public waters using them as if they were private.

Why? I can park my car or motorhome out in front of my house 365 days a year on the side of the public street and that is not considered abuse nor regulated. In fact, the neighbors can complain all they want but they have no recourse - its a public street.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Skuzzlebutt

"Your freedom to live as you wish ends the second it impacts others freedom to live as they wish. At that point, the authorities have to look at what is reasonable and you taking permanent possession of a piece of the waterway isn't fair or reasonable to everyone else who has a legitimate use for that piece of the waterway."

'Impacts'? There's a new way of putting and old truth. Sorry, but most everything one, including you, does 'impacts' others living the way they wish. I think I know what you are trying to say, but your phrase just doesn't quite cut it.

As for "taking permanent possession of a piece of the waterway", I doubt that the 300 or so square feet of ocean my vessel occupies is depriving many of their use of the waterway. In fact, I dare say that if I wasn't here, perhaps one or two jetski craft per month might cross the spot. Trust me, they have no trouble missing my, and other's, crafts by more than 50' with their troublesome wakes. No, we don't insist they go elsewhere ... they have as much right as do I.

If the matter in question is a crowded piece of 'aquascape', then yes, some regulations are in order. But when we (Florida, specifically) are talking about hundreds of square miles of anchorable ocean/gulf, then blanket laws are indeed not the solution.

I'm all for derelict boats being removed. In the Keys, the FWC officers regularly make onboard inspections, and cite those missing operable sails and/or motors. I think they are right in so doing. But forbidding all anchored vessels because it 'impacts' the view from one's property is not.

Sorry for using the term "you". It wasn't directed at you personally but those who abuse the ability to use the public waters.

Impact is exactly correct. Freedom has never meant you get to ignore the impact on others, so throwing it around as if it's justification to do so is wrong. If someone abuses the situation, they are impacting others ability to use that piece of the waterway. Even if it's only a couple of jet skis a month that has to taken into consideration. A couple of jet skis per month may or may not be enough to justify an anchoring law but they also have a right to use the public waters.

Reality is this discussion is about the popular anchorages and in that case, they have to consider safe navigation, other cruisers who would like to anchor there, is the boat likely to break loose and wind up in the mangroves and yes even the evil land owners who don't like seeing the same half a dozen run down derelict boats off their backyard for months or years on end.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by zboss

I really have to wonder... who most benefits from these anchoring laws? I say... follow the money.

The marinas and those that rent mooring balls benefit the most. So while I would say that the complaints are coming from these land owners, I'm betting if you follow the money you will find they are someone connected to large marina companies.

Why? I can park my car or motorhome out in front of my house 365 days a year on the side of the public street and that is not considered abuse nor regulated. In fact, the neighbors can complain all they want but they have no recourse - its a public street.

This parallels the anchoring rules debate perfectly. Presumably, people in your neighborhood haven't abused the RV parking, so no rules have been made.

In other areas, people have abused the parking situation and there are local ordinances prohibiting or limiting parking on public streets.

So actually abuse the situation and your neighbors do have recourse.

I honestly don't believe marina owners are the main driver behind the anchoring rules. It's people who abuse the situation getting push back.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by zboss

I really have to wonder... who most benefits from these anchoring laws? I say... follow the money.

The marinas and those that rent mooring balls benefit the most. So while I would say that the complaints are coming from these land owners, I'm betting if you follow the money you will find they are someone connected to large marina companies.
....
Why? I can park my car or motorhome out in front of my house 365 days a year on the side of the public street and that is not considered abuse nor regulated. In fact, the neighbors can complain all they want but they have no recourse - its a public street.

What I said regards crowded anchorages not streets but even in what regards public streets it all depends on how crowded they are.

In most countries of Europe on crowded streets you pay for the hour to put the car there. Residents of streets with old buildings (without private parking) have permits for not paying or for paying less but they only have right to a normal place where a truck or motor home cannot be parked and normally a family has more than a car and has to find private parking for the others if they don't want to pay fully a public one.

On streets with recent buildings all the buildings have to have a garage with space for the cars of the ones that live there so the ones that live there are are on the same situation as everybody else, except that they have places for car or cars out of the public parking.

The extreme in what regards public parking regards the more crowded cities in what regards that, Tokyo and other Japanese cities are the best example: There you cannot leave your car on the street without paying for it and you can leave it there only during the day. At night you have to park it on a private parking.

Even in what regards payed day places on the street, on most cases, the places are so small that you can only do it with a mini city car. That was what lead to the proliferation of Japanese mini city cars.

Japan's proof-of-parking rule has an essential twin policy ~ Reinventing Parking

Basically the thought is that, in what regards crowded places, were public parking for boats or cars is very far to be sufficient to all, the policy in what regards permanent parking places is this: If you want a car or a boat you have to have a private parking place for it.

In Japan they make this thought a law. To buy a car you have to make proof that you have a private parking place for it otherwise.... no car.

Buying a New Car in Japan - AngloINFO Tokyo, in Tokyo (Japan)

[capn_billl]

Zboss is right, in the USA we have the best Government money can buy. We follow the "Golden Rule", he who has the gold makes the rules.

Unless we want an anchoring law written by a marina owner, we as boaters should write one, and get it law by petitioning to get it on a state ballot.

That way when the special interests go to the Florida legislator, and demand an anchoring law, they can say "we already got one".

Another poster stated, "to tow derelict boats requires a TAX". WE ALREADY HAVE MANY TAXES.

Boat registration TAX
Fishing License TAX
Boat sales TAX
Title transference TAX
Sales TAX on parts
Fuel TAX
Mooring TAX
Dock TAX

It's not MY problem that AX money isn't enough to pay for proper management. As is pointed out in California, (the land of fruit & nuts), Boaters pay more TAXES than are used, and the excess is spent by another Department.

As ALL waterways are maintained by FEDERAL TAXES, it is likely the case in other states as well.

Even a wrecked boat contains STEEL, and LEAD, and other salvageable materials that are worth money.

MY Marina handles abandoned boats by auctioning them off, and demanding the new owner relocate them in 90 days, (enough time to transfer title, and do any engine, or sail work).

For any problem there is generally several solutions.
1. a common sense solution that costs very little, and requires no new TAXES, or Government bureaucracies.

2. A big government solution that requires a NEW Billion dollar agency, (of Alcohol Tobacco, and ANCHORING), and lots of new TAXES.

I recommend we come up with the simpler solution BEFORE some Bureaucrat comes up with solution 2.

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by zboss

SNIP

The reality is that marinas have gotten so incredibly expensive that its much more desirable to anchor out.

From my earlier post in this thread:

"Econ 101 teaches us when demand exceeds supply rationing is accomplished by increased friction in allocating goods and services."

As I posted earlier in the 1950s and 1960s when I was sailing on my Dad's boats we were often the only boat in sight on Biscayne Bay; same for many places in the Keys.

Now not only are there way more boats, but many of them are operated by folks who have little to no knowledge of what they are doing.

One thing all the threads on this topic seem to ignore is that the bill is in the environmental committee. This is because lots of what the voting public in Florida views as the problem is an environmental one. Note I did not say that is the reality, but what the public thinks is reality.

But the fact of the matter is that some boats do pose an environmental problem. They do create human waste and garbage that has to be disposed of. They also can anchor in sensitive areas including coral and sea grass. It is easy for pols to sell voters on the idea that boaters are responsible for degrading the environment.

To make matters worse there are boaters who create eye sores that make selling the idea easier. But the bottom line, as I have posted more than once, is the real problem is too many boaters in too small an area.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by tomfl

..
One thing all the threads on this topic seem to ignore is that the bill is in the environmental committee. This is because lots of what the voting public in Florida views as the problem is an environmental one. Note I did not say that is the reality, but what the public thinks is reality.

But the fact of the matter is that some boats do pose an environmental problem. They do create human waste and garbage that has to be disposed of. They also can anchor in sensitive areas including coral and sea grass. It is easy for pols to sell voters on the idea that boaters are responsible for degrading the environment.

To make matters worse there are boaters who create eye sores that make selling the idea easier. But the bottom line, as I have posted more than once, is the real problem is too many boaters in too small an area.

That is a good point. If a boat is permanently anchored with people living inside there is no way they can dispose their human waste except on the water. On this case there is no different view from the public as if shore side houses disposed their waste directly on the water. That would also be seen as gross and as degrading the environment.

Unfortunately what we have seen in Europe, as result of some boaters that act on a social unacceptable way is the increase of disproportionate measures regarding environment protection. In several EU countries you are not allowed to discharge human waste on the water near the coast but much more than that, for emptying the black water's tank you don't have just to go to 1 or 2 miles of the shore, but have to go out of territorial waters.

Many boasters due to the difficulty of controlling these measures just don't care and do as if they did not exist, but if the problem persists I have no doubt that even more restrictive laws will be implemented, easy to control, like boats having no way of discharging human waste directly to the water and black water tanks that also have no way to be discharged to the sea, but only on pumping facilities. There are talks about that already.

That can be seen as vastly exaggerated to most (and to me too) but as you stated the laws that regulate these matters are not made by boaters but by social pressure of the population that sees (rightly) on ecology issues an important subject.

There are already in several EU countries (stupid) laws that were approved under that pressure like for instance to be forbidden to anchor at less than about 300m of a beach. Of course in most cases 300m of a beach is too deep to anchor and normally it is in front of beaches that you will find good sand bottoms so in fact that prevents cruisers to use many of the anchorages.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Polux

That is a good point. If a boat is permanently anchored with people living inside there is no way they can dispose their human waste except on the water. On this case there is no different view from the public as if shore side houses disposed their waste directly on the water. That would also be seen as gross and as degrading the environment.

Unfortunately what we have seen in Europe, as result of some boaters that act on a social unacceptable way is the increase of disproportionate measures regarding environment protection. In several EU countries you are not allowed to discharge human waste on the water near the coast but much more than that, for emptying the black water's tank you don't have just to go to 1 or 2 miles of the shore, but have to go out of territorial waters.

Many boasters due to the difficulty of controlling these measures just don't care and do as if they did not exist, but if the problem persists I have no doubt that even more restrictive laws will be implemented, easy to control, like boats having no way of discharging human waste directly to the water and black water tanks that also have no way to be discharged to the sea, but only on pumping facilities. There are talks about that already.

That can be seen as vastly exaggerated to most (and to me too) but as you stated the laws that regulate these matters are not made by boaters but by social pressure of the population that sees (rightly) on ecology issues an important subject.

There are already in several EU countries (stupid) laws that were approved under that pressure like for instance to be forbidden to anchor at less than about 300m of a beach. Of course in most cases 300m of a beach is too deep to anchor and normally it is in front of beaches that you will find good sand bottoms so in fact that prevents cruisers to use many of the anchorages.

Have not been there by boat but have read a number of comments from EU that there are very few if any pump outs available. If that's the case then it's hard to understand how the countries in the EU can enact strict laws about waste discharge. I have heard that in the canals there are no pump outs at all. To me that is, what........ gross, insane, revolting.

Can you confirm that is indeed correct? Do all the charter barges on the canals just dump straight into the rivers and canals? In something big like the Rhine or Seine it's one thing but in a small canal, isolated in sections by locks it seems really bad.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by skipmac

Have not been there by boat but have read a number of comments from EU that there are very few if any pump outs available. If that's the case then it's hard to understand how the countries in the EU can enact strict laws about waste discharge. I have heard that in the canals there are no pump outs at all. To me that is, what........ gross, insane, revolting.

Can you confirm that is indeed correct? Do all the charter barges on the canals just dump straight into the rivers and canals? In something big like the Rhine or Seine it's one thing but in a small canal, isolated in sections by locks it seems really bad.

No, I have no experience at all regarding sailing Channels.

Not all EU countries are the same. Regarding discharges of black water Spain demands them to be made 8 miles away. The same with Sweden where, according to a Swede that has posted here (on another thread) about that, they have plenty of pumping facilities.

You don't have to have a lot of pumping facilities to demand that the black water deposits to be emptied 8nm from the coast (even if that seems vastly exaggerated to me). When you are at the marina you can use their WC and when you are at anchor and the tank is full you just have to sail away 8nm to empty it.

[zboss]

Originally Posted by Polux

That is a good point. If a boat is permanently anchored with people living inside there is no way they can dispose their human waste except on the water.

Untrue - a lot of those guys have converted to composting heads. A lot of Florida boats period... have converted to composting heads.

[Dave22q]

In the 30's local cops rousted hobo jungles. Their residents were transient, unwashed and undesirable. They had no rights. Rights belonged to the employed, the taxpayers, the rich. Today, not a whole lot has changed. If somebody wants space that is occupied by a permanent live aboard, boo hoo. You have my deepest pity for your plight. Try bribing the occupants to move. That is what honest folks do, they pay for what they want.
Yes, abandoned or unregistered boats need to be removed, anybody dumping raw sewerage needs to be punished but that is where it needs to stop. Urban renewal as a cover for slum removal was bad on land and is worse on water.

[2hullvenus]

Regarding the black water:

I'm in one of the crowded Florida anchorages right now. Half the boats are abandoned, using the anchorage as a free mooring field or are in extremely poor states of repair.

Just looking around, I'm afraid to jump in the water and try some new snorkeling gear while scrubbing the dinghy bottom.

I get outer ear infections easily. Very painful ones. Usually after swimming.

As to black water on my boat: Solution is simple.

There are no through hulls below the waterline on my boat at all. None.

I suggest cassette toilets to all. Best part is they hardly ever break, leaving you elbow deep in poo. Then there is also this:

Dry Flush | The Waterless Toilet

The antiquated marine head and black water system is garbage. Time to start using more simple systems while keeping the water clean as well.