What is the current FL anchoring policy?

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by RTB

Post 220, where you said "Look at the before and after of FMB, BKH, and Sarasota. If you don't agree they are 'better', then you'll never agree with the pilot program. "

If you are going to post something, please refer us to your source.

Ralph

Obviously you had to have been there. I suppose Google could be your friend.

I'm not defending Florida law, I'm trying to tell you what it states.

I personally enjoy the mooring fields, I've also anchored close to FMB and BKH and KW and bunch of other places around FL.

As you stated, FL is not a problem. The mooring fields take up less than 10nm of Florida's 1200 miles of tidal coastline. So why is everyone complaining/worrying?

I suppose one shouldn't have to register/pay when anchoring in Dry Tortugas National Park, after all, it's just sand and no mooring balls???

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by DotDun

Obviously you had to have been there. I suppose Google could be your friend.

I'm not defending Florida law, I'm trying to tell you what it states.

I personally enjoy the mooring fields, I've also anchored close to FMB and BKH and KW and bunch of other places around FL.

As you stated, FL is not a problem. The mooring fields take up less than 10nm of Florida's 1200 miles of tidal coastline. So why is everyone complaining/worrying?

I suppose one shouldn't have to register/pay when anchoring in Dry Tortugas National Park, after all, it's just sand and no mooring balls???

This is a pilot program. It means that they're testing out the concept in a few municipalities with the intention of expanding it. It has nothing at all to do with Dry Tortugas National Park fees.

As far as coastline is concerned, there are vast lengths of coastline that aren't suitable for anchoring. Those 10 nm are key points of access in desirable locations. Many natural anchorages throughout the state are co-located with municipalities that have their own interests which may or may not align with those of cruisers, so I would anticipate that those strategic locations would be the most affected.

The point of the pilot program is to establish law for the entire state. The concern is that anchorages will be more controlled throughout the state, as opposed to the relative freedom that currently exists.

I refer you to what happened in Marco Island as an example where a municipality attempts to establish controls over waterways. They did not have the legal footing to do so, and their ordinance was overturned. This is valuable in showing the potential conflict of priorities between cruisers and municipalities.

There are pros and cons of these anchoring policies. You've mentioned a couple of pros (more control of derelict boats, and mooring balls available), but I'm not sure they outweigh the concerns of giving municipalities greater control of the waterways.

I don't see derelict boats as a big problem in the Florida Panhandle, but it may be a bigger concern on the east coast, or in places like Key West. Like I said, better targeted and properly funded legislation would be more effective of that single goal. Nothing here has compelled me to believe that giving local municipalities more control of anchorages is to the cruiser's benefit. What do they get out of this grand bargain, other than mandatory use of moorings near municipalities?

I don't have a problem with the pilot program, but I'm wondering where people see this as ultimately going? Like I mentioned before, I'm hesitant to give up freedoms without a compelling argument to do so.

On a related note, are some percentage of these mooring balls reserved for transient use with some time limit, as opposed to local permanent subscribers?

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

This is a pilot program. It means that they're testing out the concept in a few municipalities with the intention of expanding it. It has nothing at all to do with Dry Tortugas National Park fees.

The only viewpoint expressed has been "damn them, they're taking away my right to anchor wherever the hell I want". Point is, this is not an uncommon act.

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

As far as coastline is concerned, there are vast lengths of coastline that aren't suitable for anchoring. Those 10 nm are key points of access in desirable locations. Many natural anchorages throughout the state are co-located with municipalities that have their own interests which may or may not align with those of cruisers, so I would anticipate that those strategic locations would be the most affected.

No doubt, but just like the parking garage that replaced an empty field next to a popular venue and now you have to pay to park. It's called growth and population shift, wherever that happens, things change.

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

The point of the pilot program is to establish law for the entire state. The concern is that anchorages will be more controlled throughout the state, as opposed to the relative freedom that currently exists.

Technically, the point of the pilot program is to test giving munis some level of control over the water adjacent to their jurisdiction. FWC is evaluating the effects of such on all parties involved.

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

I refer you to what happened in Marco Island as an example where a municipality attempts to establish controls over waterways. They did not have the legal footing to do so, and their ordinance was overturned. This is valuable in showing the potential conflict of priorities between cruisers and municipalities.

There are various points of view, more than just the cruiser.

Yes, the Marco Island case was 'illegal' as declared by a court. So what laws did it break? Florida State Law. So, now, those on the other side of the argument from the cruiser are taking their plea to the state legislature. The bothersome piece is the fact FWC will have to follow any/all laws passed by the legislature. I view FWC as trying to give voice to 'the cruising/boating community' by launching the lasted survey. It's obvious the wealthy are being heard by the politicians, but that process has been ingrained in our society forever and ain't gonna change. Hence, I view FWC as the only hope for any injection of common sense into the state legislative process.

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

There are pros and cons of these anchoring policies. You've mentioned a couple of pros (more control of derelict boats, and mooring balls available), but I'm not sure they outweigh the concerns of giving municipalities greater control of the waterways.

That's one point of view.

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

I don't see derelict boats as a big problem in the Florida Panhandle, but it may be a bigger concern on the east coast, or in places like Key West. Like I said, better targeted and properly funded legislation would be more effective of that single goal. Nothing here has compelled me to believe that giving local municipalities more control of anchorages is to the cruiser's benefit. What do they get out of this grand bargain, other than mandatory use of moorings near municipalities?

Again, that's one point of view. The landlubbers that have to look at a derelict for a year or more it takes to get it removed (after being declared derelict) under current law have a different point of view, especially when the owner (if they can even be found) can't pay for removal and the taxpayer ends up with the bill.

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

I don't have a problem with the pilot program, but I'm wondering where people see this as ultimately going? Like I mentioned before, I'm hesitant to give up freedoms without a compelling argument to do so.

My PoV:

Prior to the Marco Island case, which spurred the 2009 rewrite/clarification of state law, there were several munis writing whatever ordinance they desired around anchoring. I understand a few are still trying to enforce the local ordinances that are still on the books.

The backlash from the 2009 rewrite spurred the Pilot Program. IoW, FWC was able hold back the legislature by offering a program to test giving munis some level of control. Remember, under the Pilot Program, all local ordinances must be approved by FWC (after public input).

Some that never accepted the local anchoring ordinance smackdown from state, are constantly hounding the state legislators to change state law. Last session we saw attempts by 2 legislators. This happened at the same time the FWC was asking to add 3 years to the Pilot Program. The reason for the 3 year extension is because it took too long to get the mooring fields up and running in all 5 of the test sites (I think Sarasota opened in year 4 of the program). FWC wants more time to evaluate the effects.

One has to believe the reason FWC put out the latest survey is to get a feel for what the cruising/boating community can live with in terms of 'no anchor zones' so they are equipped for the arguments in the next legislative session. If you read between the lines, if there was a 150' zone with areas outside the zone left with existing law, would that be bad? This also hints the FWC doesn't have a good feeling about a program like the Pilot going forward. Munis are objecting to the costs associated with operation of a mooring field.

There will always be forces on each side of the topic and until an equatable resolution is found, there will be change.

Sitting, screaming, yelling about boaters rights, class warfare, and d#$%-waving about who is a real cruiser doesn't add any value to what is really happening at the state level.

All, IMO of course. YMMV

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

On a related note, are some percentage of these mooring balls reserved for transient use with some time limit, as opposed to local permanent subscribers?

You have to read each mooring field's rules. I know Sarasota allows wet storage and BKH does not. I know Sarasota has some moorings reserved for transients, I think FMB and BKH are first come first serve.