Another Free Anchorage Gone - How Do we Fight This??

[Tropic Cat]

Well, if I'm forced to accept the premise that no one wants a livaboard in their backyard, and that it simply will no longer be allowed by waterfront communities, then the problem becomes much simpler.

Since I have a home and a 'legal address', it would become more difficult to prevent me from anchoring regardless of whatever local ordinance is in effect since I'm not a liveaboard.

It's pertainent because if any of us were to vacation on our boats and come across a spot we'd like to explore for a while, apparently we would be arrested.

Rick in Florida

Rick in Florida

[hellosailor]

Rick, you are interpeting the statute to read "However, local governmental authorities are prohibited from regulating the anchorage of non-live-aboard vessels" period. But that's not what it says. It continues "engaged in the exercise of rights of navigation." which means that yes, local governments CAN regulate the anchoring rights of any/all vessels, liveaboard or not, when they are not "engaged in the exercise of rights of navigation."
So, you can forget about whether you are liveing aboard, or whether you have an address and domicile someplace else. Which is not mutually exclusive or a point of definition here. The question is, are you exercising the "rights of navigation".
And that last bit has been held, in state and federal courts, to mean PASSAGE and specifically not anchoring.

"There is no clause in the statute which refers to "for repairs from storm damage and mechanical failure and perhaps a few other slim definitions". This is your invention, not the Law in Florida." Well Rick, you're right that those words are not Florida law. But they are not my invention, they are simply my words summarizing what has been upheld in the federal and state courts--including Florida. They are the essence of what is a right of navigation (passage) and when anchoring is recognized as a necessary part of navigation, as opposed to when anchoring is considered not to be necessary. A tourist or sojourner who wants to "set a spell over yonder" is not engaged in the rights of navigation. If you don't get that, and you can't figure out the difference...Don't argue it with me, just know that some nice man in a uniform with a flashing blue light on his boat is probably going to seize your vessel when you try explaining to him that you have a right to anchor when, as, and if you please, as part of your right to navigation.

You can tell me you're right and I'm wrong, and the bottom line is still that right and wrong are not what this is all about. I'm telling you what, why, and how the courts have ruled, and you're telling me *I'm* wrong. It ain't my opinion, so I'm neither right nor wrong about that. It is what and how the courts have ruled--and I'm certain I'm right about that. Not happy--but right about what they've ruled. Doesn't matter if you or I agree with them, that's what they've ruled.

Deal with it or ignore it, at your own peril.

NMike, I find no reference for "1985 Op. Atty Gen. Fla. 127" but Florida seems to cite these as "OAG 1985-##" and apparently 1985 ends at #104, not 127.

The only reference in 1985 to anchoring seems to be OAG 85-45:

http://myfloridalegal.com/__85256236...ht=0,anchoring

which comments on the relevant section (non liveaboard vessels and anchoring) to say:

"Finally, you inquire as to the meaning of the term "rights of navigation," as that term is used in s 327.60(2), F.S.are ...I am unaware of any appellate decision of the courts of this state interpreting this provision of s 327.60(2), But see generally, Ferry Pass Inspectors' and Shippers' Association v. White's River Inspectors' and Shippers' Association, 48 So. 643 (Fla.1909); Silver Springs Paradise Co. v. Ray, 50 F.2d 356, 359 (5th Cir.1931), cert. denied, 284 U.S. 649 (1931) ("The public right of navigation entitles the public generally to the reasonable use of navigable waters for all legitimate purposes of travel or transportation, ...)
....But see, Hall v. Wantz, 57 N.W.2d 462 (Mich.1953), holding that the public right of navigation does not include as incident thereto the right to anchor indefinitely on riparian owner's premises,...
...and the inclusion of rights of anchorage as an element of the exercise of rights of navigation compel the conclusion that a municipality is prohibited from regulating the anchorage of non-live-aboard vessels when such anchorage is incident to the exercise of rights of navigation."


And that's my point. (The underlines are mine.)
You are citing a 20-year old advisory opinion (which is not the same as a law) but during those last 20 years, the courts have consistently ruled that the right to travel/transportation does NOT include the right to drop anchor any time, place, or way that you please. You have the right to anchor only as "incident to...navigation" and the courts HAVE ruled that means when it is a necessary part of navigation, i.e. to repair damage, to rest a crew fatigued from battling storms, or for other reasons of necessity.

Since you CAN also exercise those rights by using the anchorages and dockage provided for you, there is no reason that you "must" anchor in any one prohibited place (absent some necessity, as I said) any more than you can set up camp in Central Park or on the Gettysburg Battlefield, simply because it is "public" property and you feel like taking a nap there. You have the right to be there, you have the right to take naps, you have the right to collapse and fall comatose even in those places. But if you just decide you want to camp there...Uhuh. You don't have that right, just because you have the other ones.


Try harder to find a more current ruling that actually describes the role of, and limits on, anchoring as part of the right of navigation. You don't have to LIKE it, you don't have to AGREE with it, but unless you can find that right defined and supported by statute and/or court....YOU DON'T HAVE IT.


Rick, if you think the state or town is wrong, by all means, anchor where you are not allowed, and then sue them for wrongful arrest and civil rights violations after they arrest you and the boat. I'd honestly like to see you win--but I've read up on the topic over the years, and have seen ZERO to support your position.


It might be out there, and I could easily have missed it. Good luck trying to find it, because neither your opinion nor mine matters here. What has been ruled (consistantly!) is what you will be up against.

[N.M.I.ke]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

NMike, I find no reference for "1985 Op. Atty Gen. Fla. 127" ... You are citing a 20-year old advisory opinion (which is not the same as a law)...Try harder to find a more current ruling that actually describes the role of, and limits on, anchoring as part of the right of navigation. You don't have to LIKE it, you don't have to AGREE with it, but unless you can find that right defined and supported by statute and/or court....YOU DON'T HAVE IT.

I don't know how you're searching; I looked it up on Lexis (that's something lawyers use every once in a while... like, EVERY DAY) and came up with 1985 Fla. AG LEXIS 61; 1985 Op. Atty Gen. Fla. 127 from May 31, 1985. I could be wrong; Lexis could be wrong, but if we are, at least the lawyers will be wrong together. I just know that if you type 1985 Op. Atty Gen. Fla. 127 into "get a document" in Lexis, you get the AG's opinion.

I never said it was good law, bad law or even a law. I said it is where I would start my research. In fact, I think I even put the word "begin" in ALL CAPS, signifying that it probably wasn't the last word on the subject. Further, I don't think any fair reading of what I wrote in any way contradicted you (or supported you, for that matter), since I was quite clearly NOT trying to advise anyone to do or not do anything, nor was I attempting to find the most current answer on the subject; I merely was giving the interested a place to START.

Sorry about that; I read in an earlier post that an attorney should chime in, so I did. (You will be hard pressed to find a decent attorney who would give any sort of opinion on the state of the law to strangers in an open forum, IMHO). I figured I would share my research ability (not legal judgment), since someone asked so nicely. Next time, I'll just say nothing.

As for your "try harder next time" comment, I'll let my time editing the law review, my top 5% graduation place, my clerkship with a commonwealth supreme court justice, my years of practice and the fact that I am currently legal counsel for a LEGISLATURE (I think I know a thing or two about statutory interpretation) speak for my ability to figure what the law is, when that is what I am, in fact, trying to do.

And I won't touch at all your "if it isn't in a statute, you have no rights" notion.

[Tropic Cat]

NMIKE,

I gave up responding to that guy. He adds nothing to the discussion and seems to enjoy tearing up other's posts. It wouldn't be so bad except he's ususally wrong. Oh well, it takes all kinds...

I was married to a woman who was like that and am now happily divorced!!

Rick in Florida

[hellosailor]

Well, NMike, I'm glad to know you're a top attorney. Then you should know that Lexis is a private database system for paying customers only. Some libraries make it available to their members but the general public will not be paying what Lexis charges directly. (Pre-internet it was available on the Lockheed Dialog system, one of the most incredible and affordable database systems available.)

I don't know how or why Lexis calls it that way, only that Google and other search engines, who have credentials equal to yours or mine, do not think your citation exists. And publications from the Florida OAG's office don't seem to use Lexis' nomenclature. I suspect Lexis uses a non-standard form because it is a unique appellation better suited to their private system.

"I am currently legal counsel for a LEGISLATURE (I think I know a thing or two about statutory interpretation) " That may well be, but many courts would say that many legislatures write statues so poorly worded they would flunk the "plain english" requirements in those jurisdictions that have them. My congratulations to you if yours knows how to write clearly.

"And I won't touch at all your "if it isn't in a statute, you have no rights" notion." BY all means, touch it. Since you know how to write and have such high credentials, you must also know how to read IN CONTEXT. I stand by what I said, in context. There is no common law precedent in the US for "anchor when, where, and as you please" which is Rick's position. There is no statutory support for it. And the courts have all ruled against it, for various reasons and parties and places, but always against it.

So you tell us, aside from vague citations of non-binding opinions, where you can find any legal support for Rick's opinion. You tell us, where have the precedents, codes, or courts, said that he's right and the state and federal governments are all (ALL) wrong?

If you went to law school, you're certainly familiar with the command "CITE YOUR SOURCES." And you're certainly able to do so. EASILY able to do so...even though you fail to. Don't tell us to buy Lexis access, give us a public citation. There are plenty of law libraries on line these days.

Cite your sources.

Or, go into a rage at me because you can't find any. That'll help prove...what point again, exactly?

[GordMay]

Some free “Google” results:
Anchoring Away: Government Regulation and the Rights of Navigation in Florida
by Thomas T. Ankersen & Richard Hamann
http://www.law.ufl.edu/conservation/pdf/anchaway.pdf

Florida Statute 327.60(2)--concludes: ". . . local governmental authorities are prohibited from regulating the anchorage of non-liveaboard vessels engaged in the exercise of rights of navigation. . . ." The state's definition of a "liveaboard" vessel, as stated in Florida Statute 327.02(16), is one that's "used solely as a residence."

There’s also considerable materials available at:
http://www.bootkeyharbor.com/

[hellosailor]

Gord, the question is, as I said, what is "engaged in the exercise of rights of navigation. "

I'm either mule stubborn or adamant, call it whichever, but everything I've seen or heard says that is the sole remaining critical issue here. And again, everything I've heard or seen says, so far, that the rights of navigation DO NOT include the rights to simply drop the hook at any time, any place, and any manner which is chosen for *convenience* as opposed to being necessary and intrinsic to navigation. Navigation here is held as passage (passing through) not camping on the water.

As it says in Black's Law Dictionary (the most-used standard in the US), "Navigation: The art or science or business OF TRAVERSING the sea..."

Traversing ain't anchoring, and anchoring is not a necessary or intrinsic part of "traversing" except when required for safety reasons. (Repairs, fatigue, etc.) Aside from those necessary stops...you could reasonably say that anchoring totally impedes and defeats the concept of "traversing". Unless you're dragging the hook.<G>

[Brent Swain]

You show up at the all candidates meetings with as many cruisers as you can round up ,when they are trying to get re-elected, take turns hogging the mike , and make sure this is the only issue they are able to discuss.
Brent

[Jimske]

Originally Posted by markpj23

I'm absolutely positive that there is NO connection between the new marina opening in National City CA this month and the San Diego Port Commission's decision this week to close the free A-8 anchorage area - guess where - just off of National City.

And I have some cheap real estate in Florida to sell ya.....

This is beginning to INFURIATE me. Miami has imposed anchoring time limits, most of Long Island / Connecticut towns & cities are rousting folks off...

There has to be a way to make our collective voices heard.

I am angry as well about the unavailablility of anchorages. But I am realistic.
IMO, cruisers are folks who a) don't have a lot of money or b) don't want to spend a lot of money c) just like the free spirit lifestyle and are averse to authority.

Now, the rest of the boaters pay taxes, can affod a marina/mooring; belong to a community; don't have a heck of a lot of free time. They want folks to conform with them. So, they are docksailors or weekend boaters and pay dearly for their recreation. There are more of them then us.

No way, petition or not, that the cruisers types are going to get accepted by the "pay as you go types." For the most part we are considered to be slackers. But wait: we ARE envied somewhat; AND respected for our "libertarian" ways. We have to use this to our advantage.

There is no answer: as the rich get richer and buy more boats and rent more room they will squeeze us out. A nice recession and/or depression could help "ease the crowd" and reduce the costs but. . .

In the meantime we have to suck it up. Look around, there are places and people who will help and advise even though the anchorages may be a little inconvenient sometimes. I have found several spots in the northeast where I can "hide."

Jim

[ssullivan]

Jim's got it right. In fact... I was on this thread earlier complaining. Since April, I have had only 1 person come up to my boat while anchored, many times in a single harbor for weeks on end.

I'm not saying anything when it comes to FL. They are just stupid down there in terms of enforcing anchoring laws.

In reality, most boats sit on moorings or on docks for the entire summer, going out for a few weekends or so. Liveaboard anchoring isn't a big problem, and we are one of a handful I have seen traveling through the Northeast all summer. Like Jim, I am very careful about where I anchor. I don't anchor close to town. I anchor out - WAY out. Frequently I have a 2 mile trip to town in the dinghy. Authorities only care if you are in their crowded little harbors. Stay out, and you won't need to have this debate.

[Jimske]

All the above posts show our true anarchist colors. Instead of petitions how about fighting fire with fire. This may work best on the Atlantic seabord.

Start an organization of boaters who have permitted moorings and are willing to share them with others who have them. In the meantime disseminate information on where to acquire town permits and scoff up as many of them as you can - even if you don't cruise there much. Some towns have a LONG waiting list, others do not. So get on the waiting list.

After that it would be just a matter of making a phone call to the permit holder on the list and inform that you'd like to hook up or even raft. I know there are places (Block Island for example) where rafting is pretty much the norm.

I also know that some harbors have regulations which prohibit lending or renting your mooring but. . .rules are made to be broken. Nantucket has that regulation yet I stayed on a borrowed mooring for months. The HB didn't like it but they let it slide.

The folks who might be interested in this are people who do cruise a bit and have moorings. If you ahve a mooring and you don't cruise much then, well, you probably don't care.

Good Idea or Bad?

Jim

[hellosailor]

Bad idea, Jim. If you're going to start a shooting war, and you know the contracts prohibit what you are going to do (i.e. lending the mooring) then as soon as the shooting starts you can expect to get evicted from your mooring.

That's not going to help anyone.

[rleslie]

My wife and I spent last winter sailing down the west coast of Florida (began in Panama City), went through the Keys and up the east coast to our dock on the Pamlico Sound. We were NEVER approached by law enforcement, nor were we ever asked to leave an anchorage. We usually spent 2-3 nights at each anchorage and one night in a marina per week. The only time we saw law enforcement checking to see how long boaters were anchoring was off Long Boat Key. I flagged him down and asked why he had written down our boat's name. I was advised that there is a local ordinace against long term anchoring (I believe it is 4 days, but not certain). As a crusier (6 months per year) I understand both sides of the argument. When I consider the limited room at most anchorages and the number of cruisers/boaters wanting to use them, I have no problem with restricting the time allowed and/or the prohibition of long term anchoring.

The ONLY time that I was restricted from anchoring in an area, it was by other sailors. I must admit that I was very upset when I arrived in Beaufort, NC to find that dozens of private moorings had been established off of the town docks and we could not find room to anchor. Only a few of the boats had anyone aboard. This was clearly a case of other BOATERS, not law enforcment, interferring with my opportunity to anchor. I do not feel that the establishing of private moorings should be allowed, but do fully support the rights of cruisers to anchor for short periods while cruising.

I'm curious, how many of you have actually been restricted by law enforcement from anchoring overnight?

Roger

[ssullivan]

Good point, Roger! I often notice that while there are laws prohibiting anchoring from time to time, they are not as strictly enforced as this thread leads us to believe. I also notice very frequently, that many of the Northeast's greatest anchorages are crammed full of moorings (boat owner and marina moorings) to such an extent that there is little room left to anchor inside the harbor - if any!

This is why I always anchor so far out. I have a decent size boat that displaces 26,000lbs. It does well at anchor in the chop, so I just bounce instead of trying to anchor in where it's more desirable.

In my area, there are places marked "special anchorage" on the chart. These spots were set aside by the Feds as a place to anchor without restriction. Well guess what? Whenever I go to one of these, I find out that the place has plenty of boats "anchored" on permanent moorings and there is absolutely not a spot left to drop the hook.

So I agree with you. I have a bone to pick with fellow boaters as well. It's a crowded country these days. I can't say I'm right for wanting them out. I can't say they're right for taking the anchorage in the town they live. They probably want me out too.

It's the nature of the beast. I think I said it in an earlier post. The easiest way to anchor is to anchor where other people won't - in the boonies or in small spots others are scared of. I squeak into those all the time.

[hellosailor]

Sean-
"In my area, there are places marked "special anchorage" on the chart. These spots were set aside by the Feds as a place to anchor without restriction. "
Did I get that backwards again? I thought the SPECIAL anchorages were the ones with SPECIAL LIMITATIONS (i.e. harbormaster, mooring field,e tc. and only the "general anchorages" were open ones--where a radio watch and anchor light are normally required.