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

[ssullivan]

You know... I'm not sure. I just did a little internet search and came up with the following code after seeing it mentioned on the chart:

An Act of Congress of April 22, 1940, provides for the designation of special anchorage areas wherein vessels not more than sixty-five feet in length, when at anchor, will not be required to carry or exhibit anchorage lights. Such designation is to be made after investigation, by rule, regulation, or order, the procedure for which will be similar to that followed for anchorage grounds under section 7 of the River and Harbor Act of March 4, 1915, as referred to in §109.05. The areas so designated should be well removed from the fairways and located where general navigation will not endanger or be endangered by unlighted vessels. The authority to designate special anchorage areas was transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Transportation by section 6(g)(1)(D) of the Department of Transportation Act (80 Stat. 931) and delegated to the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard under §1.46 of Title 49 CFR, who has redelegated pursuant to the authority to establish special anchorage areas to each Coast Guard District Commander in §1.05–1(e)(1)(i).


So... it looks like you are right. I had it backwards. Although... it doesn't say anything about moorings. Technically, I should have the right to anchor there too and not display an anchor light.

[hellosailor]

"So... it looks like you are right. I had it backwards."
Hey, that's MY JOB [getting things backwards] and you keep out of it, or I'll call the shop steward.<G>

Part of the "special" nature of those anchorages is that you can park the boat black, no lights, no nothing, because it is expected to be a controlled mooring field or other "local" special anchorage. Of course the great fun of it (not) is that all sorts of folks claim they own it, claim creative boundaries for it, claim claim claim.

[ssullivan]

Ha ha ha... Claim claim claim. I'm guilty of that too. Right now, I'm *exactly* on the line of one of those special anchorages. I fit in like the next mooring. I fit in so well, I had some people come up to the boat to say hi, only to realize I wasn't the person they were looking for. He was on the next boat in.

But here I am, claiming my spot, guilty as anyone else. I am so tightly integrated with the mooring field that I don't even put my anchor light on (probably going to catch some heat for that on on this forum!). It helps me blend in, and I am technically inside that little line... the Special Anchorage line.

Oddly, I notice in the regulation above that boats over 65ft can't be left in these Special Anchorages. I don't think I've ever seen this law enforced.

[alanperry]

For all the talk about petitions and political power it appears that there is a great naivete out there about how this system works. Before you can fight anything you have got to have a clear headed unserstanding of how the system works and what you are up against.

None of us as individuals has any political clout with anyone much less your Congressional reps. Further, banning together on a sheet of paper (a petition)is a waste of time and paper. Nothing will make it to the round file in a congressional office faster, especially on an issue like this. (No 9/11 Widows or child abuse involved here)

The only effective way to fight this type of geographically widespread anti anchoring legislation is to press those organizations, such as Boat US, West Marine, SSCA and otheres to form a PAC and fund a lobbyist in Washington to press the pleasure boat public agenda. We all need to help fund such a PAC.

Further, anyone who thinks that politicians do things because they "don't like us cruisers" is dreaming. Politicians do what they do for very practical, self interested reasons. In many cases they are responding to angry business interests who percieve that their economic problems stem from a particular eysore, crime issue or other negative aspect of their community. It certainly is not unusual for the local pols to do away with what may be percieved as a problem when they can proudly point to the brand new marina that has just been finished. And yes, that marina will bring jobs, pay taxes and fuel the general prosperity of the surrounding area. None of which could be said with any certainty for the free anchoring areas.

Also, there may be in many of these cases, a real issue or problem that actually needs addressing. The reason we get an outcome that we don't like is that we don't have a seat at the table to make our views heard and negotiate a solution that works for all. That's what a lobbyist does. And many of them are very good at it.

The boating publics power lies in it's economic clout, much like the Gay community. How we use that power is up to us. But I can gaurantee you a petition is a non starter. We are too diverse, too widespread geographically and of too many differing political persuasions to be effective in any other way except what I outlined above.

Alan Perry
S/V Oceanus
Seattle WA

[GordMay]

Check out the 1971 classic on grass-roots organizing ~ "Rules for Radicals" ~ by Saul Alinsky. Although somewhated dated, and representing a primarilly "confrontational" approach, the book is an interesting and entertaining read.

Alinsky provides a collection of rules to guide the process. But he emphasizes these rules must be translated into real-life tactics that are fluid and responsive to the situation at hand.

Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.

Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people.
The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.

Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”

Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.

Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”

Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation.

Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

FWIW,
Gord

Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”

Sounds all to disgustingly familiar. Attack, attack, attack without any real solution of your own to offer as a solution.
B*tch B*tch B*tch


Allan Perry got it right. We need to work within the system. How do we get Boat US and others to recognize they should be helping us?

[GordMay]

Xort missed the point of rule 10, and almost certainly has not read the book.
The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”
By which Alinsky means that you must be prepared to offer a constructive alternative.

Of course, Alinsky was dealing with confrontational public circumstances, as were typical in the 60's & 70's.

I'll write a little more on "motivating" politicians (& others) after I return home (Sept 15).

[rleslie]

Are we talking about the perceived right of a very small minority of the boating community that feels they should have the right to permanently anchor in public waters or the issue of short term anchoring while cruising? These are two totally seperate issues.

It's those who feel that they have a right to permanently anchor that cause all the backlash from communities. Even as a crusier, I am appalled by the number of derelict boats is areas like Sarasota.

Roger

[ssullivan]

Being on the longer side of the "short term anchorage" crowd, I'd say we are indeed talking about short term. If you want to do it very long term, that's what moorings are for.

But... if I want to enjoy a place for a month, why should there be a restriction?

[Jimske]

Any cruiser who thinks they ever had a right to anchor willy-nilly where and as they pleased? Was misinformed. That's why I say it is a waste of time and effort to try pursuing this non-existant "right".[/quote]

I am in line with the folks who like the idea of a legal battle confronting exisitng "policy." Using petitions and getting support of publications/ manufacturers, etc. Class action suit? Questioning the constitutionality through the State DA?

I am reading Chapter 2 of the USCG Navigation Rules. What I find interesting is that the rules designate anchorages and allow anchoring in many areas but then state "The anchoring of vessels and placing of mooring floats or buoys will be under the jurisdiction , and the discretion of the local Harbor Master."

I am no lawyer but. . .This could be a legal and/or constitutional question. Can the fed bypass the state and give jurisdiction to the municipality? Have the states passed laws relegating jurisdiction to the municipality? Maybe we need somebody to really look into this. Regardless, the ACLU should take up our cause!

Jim

Greetings All.. Gord I have copied and saved the "Rules for Radicals" because it's good material but a side of you I wouldn't have guessed!

In the most general sense these issue are popping up all over the world. I won't go into my opinion of the possible motivations behind the attacks on boat freedoms but am doing what I can to help. I have been in touch with the SSCA and I think we will go ahead with a cooperative effort to promote their "Boater Buck" idea with an aussie slant. In the edition of my paper due to print this monday I will introduce the SSCA to the aussie boaties that don't already know the organisation and have already launched web pages with the cooperation of SSCA.
see http://www.thecoastalpassage.com/ssca.html
and http://www.thecoastalpassage.com/boatybucks.html

I think there are specific areas that may be improved by the reverse reciept technique, notably Airlie Beach and Cairns which are both decreasing access to boaties at the same time boaties are increasingly important to the local merchants.. but I really don't think they realise ..yet.

Cheers

[Tropic Cat]

Jim,

I was active in this thread along with many other folks a couple of months ago. I think if you read from the beginning of the thread a lot of your questions will be answered.

As to this particular question, the USCG or any other part of government are out of it as the Federal Government handed over control of these waterways out to the 3 mile limit in the "Submerged Land Act" of 1953. The law was challenged and upheld by the Supreme Court in 1977. The info is 'upstream' in this thread.

Alan, I agree with your post. We need a PAC and a lobby or it's curtains for us....

Rick in Florida

[alanperry]

Rickm505 thanks. It amazes me sometimes how many folks don't fundamentally get how this system really operates. Legal action carries a host of unintended consequenses. Further to the point we, as boaters, are generally percieved to be of the fat-cat leisure class by the vast majority. This means that any hope for sympathy from the average voter or congress person has disappeared before you ever open your collective mouth. Another thing working against us in this issue is the fact that the media find it a huge yawn for the same reasons and wont' give you any space. Worse yet, if they do it will be one of those sarcastic "see what the poor little rich folks are complaining about now" peices.

I am sorry but the ONLY way to fight a thing like this is to do as I outlined. Our economic clout really cannot be brought to bear with "boaters bucks" to any effective extent except in small well defined geographic areas...definitely not on a national scale. I know that seems counter intuitive at first, but consider this: Each municipal or state entity can effectively rely upon the fact that they can ignore what is going on in California or Washington and actually use it against us. The argument will go something like: Don't let the wealthy boaters turn South Carolina into anoher California.

I applaud Gord for his post. And I think it was put out there to expand the discussion. But nowdays the people in government all graduated from that school and know the answers to the test. They are generally smart, savvy and can outmanuever most of us any day of the week. Unfortunately the Republican mantra of "there's no good government" and the "inside the beltway group" has left many folks with the sadly mistaken veiw that government officials are dolts and idiots. A fact they use against us at every turn. It's a classic case of grossly underestimating your challenger.

Our best chance begins and ends with using our economic clout with those who profit from it the most and encourage them to join together, out of their own self interest, to create a lobby to fight for those issues that are MOST IMPORTANT to us. To be honest I have to agree with some here that this anchoring issue is not the most important question facing us at the moment.

Also, legal action and quoting law can be very satisfying...and horribly expensive, unless you can get pro-bono work. But let's face it, this is just not a burning social issue that the ACLU is going to tackle. Secondly you have got to pick a case you can win. Otherwise you run the risk of setting precedent against yourself and making it easier for other municipalities to follow suit. I think this is a real danger in the anchoring issue. We need QUIET, DIPLOMATIC, BEHIND-THE-SCENES work that will result in producing favorable NEW laws or getting the old bad ones off the books.

Quickie, feel-good, beat the bastards with a stick, approaches are all doomed to failure at the starting gate.

Alan Perry
S/V Oceanus
Seattle WA

[S/V Elusive]

But, but, but I WANT to beat the bastards with a stick!!! Does this make me a bad person??

[GordMay]

TCP Bob:
Which side of me wouldn't you have guessed:
- the side that claims the ability to
or
- the side that insinuates the actual history of
having read a book?
Gord