Florida Anchoring Survey

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Have you traveled along the ICW east coast? There are lots of places that are small and just off the channels that people do anchor in. The point is that Fla is wanting to restrict the Anchorage's based on residencial or commercial buildings being adjacent. It has nothing to do with USCG channel rules.

Your earlier post:

So the survey implies that they want a 150 set back restriction on anchoring at night next to residential/commercial property, if I followed it right. So a canal with property on both sides that is less than about 400 feet wide would be restricted. That knocks out a lot of the FLA water.

1) Florida FWC doesn't want to do anything, they are trying to find a compromise to the pressure coming from the state legislature (which comes from the landlubber constituents). If FWC doesn't get in front of this, some legislator will ram any kind of nonsense through and pass law. I'd much rather have FWC attempt to add sanity to that process (if that's possible).

2) 400 feet is an awfully small space. My point about the USCG rules, is that a waterway 400' wide is most likely already a no anchor zone per USCG. A small bay, probably OK per USCG.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by DotDun

Your earlier post:



1) Florida FWC doesn't want to do anything, they are trying to find a compromise to the pressure coming from the state legislature (which comes from the landlubber constituents). If FWC doesn't get in front of this, some legislator will ram any kind of nonsense through and pass law. I'd much rather have FWC attempt to add sanity to that process (if that's possible).

2) 400 feet is an awfully small space. My point about the USCG rules, is that a waterway 400' wide is most likely already a no anchor zone per USCG. A small bay, probably OK per USCG.

Looks like you live in Fla, so you have a dog in the fight. Definitely agree that this should be handled at the state level. Local politics is rough.
400 feet is longer than a football field. If you need a stern anchor to stay out of the channel fine. But the 150 setback from both sides makes that impractical. A 25 ft setback would be OK.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Looks like you live in Fla, so you have a dog in the fight. Definitely agree that this should be handled at the state level. Local politics is rough.
400 feet is longer than a football field. If you need a stern anchor to stay out of the channel fine. But the 150 setback from both sides makes that impractical. A 25 ft setback would be OK.

Have you ever anchored 25' from something??? Really?

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by DotDun

Have you ever anchored 25' from something??? Really?

Yes. I assume the proposed solution means no part of the boat would go into the exclusion zone. So I have anchored many times where I swing within 25 ft things.

[Boatguy30]

The problem is is they call a no wake sign marine infrastructure in the pilot program. So now you can't anchor wishing 150' of anything if they adopt that.

[Waterway Guide]

The FWC has posted the results of the online survey about potential new anchoring regulations in Florida. The purpose of the survey is to create "guidelines" for new anchoring restriction laws likely to be introduced in this year's Florida legislative session, which ends May 1, 2015.

Of the six concepts, the second one is the most problematic for cruising boaters: "A setback distance where anchoring of vessels overnight in close proximity to waterfront residential property would be prohibited." Unfortunately, "51% of respondents either somewhat or strongly agreed that a setback from waterfront residences was appropriate" and, since the recommended setback options didn't include "zero" the FWC doesn't mention how many people wrote that in (I would expect that the 43% that were against a setback would have chosen zero). You can access the survey results here: Anchoring Survey Results


...or from here for more of my commentary and links to previous articles: Florida anchoring survey results are now available | General | Waterwayguide.com News Updates.

[Group9]

If Carl Hiaasen doesn't incorporate all of this anchoring scheme stuff into his next book, he is really missing a good opportunity.

I'd like to see what Skink would think about it (and what he would do in response).

[Group9]

Originally Posted by Waterway Guide

Of the six concepts, the second one is the most problematic for cruising boaters: "A setback distance where anchoring of vessels overnight in close proximity to waterfront residential property would be prohibited." Unfortunately, "51% of respondents either somewhat or strongly agreed that a setback from waterfront residences was appropriate" and, since the recommended setback options didn't include "zero" the FWC doesn't mention how many people wrote that in (I would expect that the 43% that were against a setback would have chosen zero).

Yes, when taking the survey, that kind of jumped out at me. I would have picked "zero" but was forced to pick the next least objectionable choice, 150 feet.

Not the cleverest (or most subtle) attempt to game a survey I've ever seen, but I guess it served it's purpose.

[a64pilot]

I and I'm sure others had a heart ache about how the survey was done. Sort of like would you have
A. something very undesirable or
b. something still underisable, but less so

I think the survey was "rigged", but of course what can you do? At least what can you do that is constructive?


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[Group9]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I and I'm sure others had a heart ache about how the survey was done. Sort of like would you have
A. something very undesirable or
b. something still underisable, but less so

I think the survey was "rigged", but of course what can you do? At least what can you do that is constructive?


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

Yeah, a real,

"How often should you beat your wife?
1. Once a week.
2. Once a month.
3. Once a year"

Type question.

[BLACKBIRD1]

We are live aboards,i grew up in Fl. and currently live in Fl.i did take the survey, if I had water front property, I would not want a boat anchored out side my door for extended periords,IMO , common courtesy dictates ,that's not cool, what I gathered from the survey was that they are trying to prevent the abandoned vessels and derelicts,,, case in point on the saint johns river in Jacksonville, there are boats that have no propulsion of any kind, and basically. home less paddle back and forth, to the vessel, in that area there are varying degrees of types and size vessels, as usual the few spoil it for the many, I don't see the survey as big brother taking away my rights,.IMHO.

[Seymore]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I and I'm sure others had a heart ache about how the survey was done. Sort of like would you have
A. something very undesirable or
b. something still underisable, but less so

I think the survey was "rigged", but of course what can you do? At least what can you do that is constructive?

The Florida anchoring survey was a diddle. When you had filled it out, you had said that you want navigable tidal waters to be heavy-handedly policed, crapped on and ruined by Florida--and the states.

What to do? Well first, note carefully the word "Preemption". Then read this again.,....

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...on-130541.html

The US Coast Guard wants to re-establish Admiralty Law over the tidal waterways of the United States, which is exactly what we want, and exactly what's needed. You have to write the USCG and ask them to reopen the comments period. Then you give them the information they need, telling them why they're needed to re-establish the authority of Admiralty Law over tidal waters in the face of destructive illegal presumptions.

[Group9]

Originally Posted by Seymore

The Florida anchoring survey was a diddle. When you had filled it out, you had said that you want navigable tidal waters to be heavy-handedly policed, crapped on and ruined by Florida--and the states.

What to do? Well first, note carefully the word "Preemption". Then read this again.,....

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...on-130541.html

The US Coast Guard wants to re-establish Admiralty Law over the tidal waterways of the United States, which is exactly what we want, and exactly what's needed. You have to write the USCG and ask them to reopen the comments period. Then you give them the information they need, telling them why they're needed to re-establish the authority of Admiralty Law over tidal waters in the face of destructive illegal presumptions.

Here's hoping that happens. They still do exert their control over states from time to time. After Katrina (2005), the State of Mississippi tried to build a new, non-opening bridge over Biloxi Bay, to a height less than the Coast Guard demanded.

The State fought them, arguing all of the points that the people supporting Florida's efforts to infringe on navigable waters are using, and lost and Mississippi had to redesign the bridge to be the height the Coast Guard demanded so as not to interfere with free navigation.