Florida Mooring and Anchoring Pilot Program Survey

[Blue Crab]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Is this the stage of a thread when people disagree it is time to start doing the insulting name calling? After all it appears to you that people who want to catch a mooring at a crowded place instead of doing a bumper boat now are the ones who can not sail, fix their boats, are scared, and have poor seamanship.

What a bunch of crap!

Yep. I was overly snarky but my intent was to offer a realistic answer to Dot Dun's question about the MF waiting list in Boot Key harbor. But if the boot fits, ya know what to do.

I'm not against mooring fields per se, but boaters I know would prefer to use their own ground tackle rather than bet the farm on a municipality's mooring maintenance man. I'd rather a smaller mooring field within an established anchorage. That could be a real service to the boating community rather than an expensive and underhanded attempt to control the behavior of others.

I think most on this thread get that many of these issues could have been solved long ago by local checks and enforcement of existing registration and marine sanitation laws. Moreover, a reasonable anchoring time limit in a tight spot like Boot Key wouldn't offend me at all. Add that to the mix and all the derelict issues go away. We'd still be left with an oddball angry landowner but would have removed most of his ammunition.

To give Marathon a polite nod, I love the fact that the mooring field is for liveaboards only, i.e. not wet storage.

[forsailbyowner]

Originally Posted by tomfl

But I spent most of the time at boot key.

. My personal opinion is that Boot Key has a much better ambiance than Key West for boaters, as opposed to posers.

While it is true I can find places to dock along seawalls next to condos or private homes around Key Vaca the problem is there are laws prohibiting sleeping on the boat for more than a couple of nights in a row. Maybe you could sneak around this for a while but I know boaters who have had condo owners turn them in.

it.

Yep its the real boaters that spend most of their time on a mooring ball. Darn posers anchoring out where nobody can see them.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by Blue Crab

Yep. I was overly snarky but my intent was to offer a realistic answer to Dot Dun's question about the MF waiting list in Boot Key harbor. But if the boot fits, ya know what to do.

Looking at the number of boats using the mooring field compared to those at anchor around BKH, those at anchor seem to be in the minority. One can hoist all the negative connotations and hyperbole against those using the mooring balls one likes, but it doesn't change the fact that the BKH mooring field has improved the quality of life for liveaboards, cruisers, and the landlubbers. A greater good, if you will. Whenever there is greater good, someone gets the short end of the deal, a fact of living in a society.

Again, the pilot program in Florida regulates less than 20 miles of Florida's 1200 mile tidal coastline (probably less than 10 miles). Don't like the rules? Go anchor somewhere in the remaining 1180 miles that have fewer rules.

Changing the discussion to one's opinion of the "correct" usage of a boat doesn't add any value to the thread.

[Blue Crab]

Originally Posted by DotDun

... Changing the discussion to one's opinion of the "correct" usage of a boat doesn't add any value to the thread.

No argument about that in this particular context.

[BandB]

Originally Posted by DotDun

Again, the pilot program in Florida regulates less than 20 miles of Florida's 1200 mile tidal coastline (probably less than 10 miles). Don't like the rules? Go anchor somewhere in the remaining 1180 miles that have fewer rules.
.

Very simply, it's a small pilot program as they try to find a solution that is best for all. They could have done nothing which would not have addressed the issue. They could have implemented a state wide program and reduced the ability to anchor dramatically. But they choose to try a more moderate approach to see how it might work.

[Boatguy30]

And they have found nothing of actual substance. Celadly has had the desired effect if Titusville as their rep is sponsoring the desired extension.

How long till it spreads to the entire state. 2017 (end of proposed extension) would be a nice cozy year for that as it would be over 15 months till another election. Stop it now.

Without it the FWC will have trouble hassling boaters in Monroe County (I think more than 20 miles there).

We have a state anchoring law. We do not need a further pilot program.

[zboss]

Just cause we are not moving every 3 days doesn't mean we are not cruising.

I liked having a place to stop for a while and explore a deep history. Get to know some people, see the sites, find our favorite food, do some shopping, take care of chores, etc. We were on a mooring that is very well taken care of.

OTOH... The Titusville mooring field is a waste of time and money for the State. There is NOTHING to do in Titusville, thus not a worthy place to spend our time. A mooring field that is closer to NASA and the Kennedy Space Center would be much better.

Plus, that fetch is horrible. Any winds out of the east or north make for an horrible night.

[Boatguy30]

I guess that's why Titusville need the pilot program laws to force people to use their mooring field.......

sorry I meant "promote the use of"

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

And they have found nothing of actual substance. Celadly has had the desired effect if Titusville as their rep is sponsoring the desired extension.

How long till it spreads to the entire state. 2017 (end of proposed extension) would be a nice cozy year for that as it would be over 15 months till another election. Stop it now.

Without it the FWC will have trouble hassling boaters in Monroe County (I think more than 20 miles there).

We have a state anchoring law. We do not need a further pilot program.

I think you are mixing/confusing a couple of different topics.

1) AFAIK, Titusville mooring field is not part of the pilot program.

2) The Florida FWC is on the side of boaters! The FWC lawyers defended the boaters that took the municipalities to court. The FWC lawyers re-wrote/re-worded the state law clearly defining liveaboard vs. in-navigation which takes away a municipalities ability to write anti-anchoring ordinances.

3) As support grew for municipality 'local control' within the ranks of the Florida Legislators, the FWC suggested a 'pilot program' that allows municipalities to build mooring fields (note: give something to the boating community, but YMMV on this point) and in turn have the ability to 'control' the area 'close to' the mooring field. Such control must be reviewed/approved by the FWC. The pilot program was originally for 5 years. Since municipalities took so long to move on the pilot program, the FWC decided to give the program another 3 years. That is the legislation introduced in this session.

4) Yes, without any new legislation, the pilot program will die meaning the 5 current municipal ordinances approved under the pilot program would go away. The question is then, do you believe the municipalities have forgotten their quest for 'local control'??? I doubt it. So, next years legislative session will be filled with multiple suggested laws, written by various muni's giving them 'local control'. In contrast, if the pilot program is extended, it's very possible the FWC will become the victors and be able to oversee any muni's desire to control the water. Remember, the FWC is an enforcement agency that brings some sense of reasonableness to the Florida Legislature.

5) The recent hassle by the FWC in BKH has nothing to do with the pilot program or the muni ordinances created under the pilot program.

[Boatguy30]

The pilot or gram in most aspects especially here in St aut has nothing to do with the mooring.

It's just hat under state law, they can only ban anchoring in mooring fields and they wanted to ban it a bunh more place. So no you can't anchor within 150' of anything or in the entire south half of salt run.

The state anchoring law will not allow for any additional limits on anchoring. I do not think the state legislature has the will or desire to rewrite the entire law.

you don't see this happening with guns do you? Several southern counties would like to restrict firearms in playounds and parks. State won't let them. why should the anchor bearers get screwed?

[hellosailor]

"Hum. So how many here have been hit by a un-insured derelict boat."
I don't know, but that wasn't the question. Derelicts need to be removed, and that's expensive by the time they sink. If you require numbers and registration, with or without insurance you can go after the owner. The major problem with derelicts appears to be that clever owners remove the VIN, which can't be seen during a quick look-see, and then by the time someone tries to find the last owner...there's no VIN, no markings, and a sodden hulk to be raised and hauled away.

In contrast, if your car sits on the street overnight with no plates and no registration? In most places it will be ticketed by the morning and towed shortly after. Not all, but most.

Hit by a derelict? Probably most often when they break loose in a storm. But the water, like the land, is no longer great open spaces. That means social contracts have to be formed, and enforced, or people will deal with the problems on their own.

[forsailbyowner]

Your delusional if you think the derelict boats out there have their hin removed. really? you think this is the problem? I know it costs a minimum of $5k if you dont respond to the red tag and it has to be removed. i personally know several boat dismantlers, salvage companies, tow companies who are very slow because of the economy and would jump at the chance to get in on subcontracting or contracting for the removal. The laws are there ive seen many boats removed from snug harbor already. Whats going on is a power grab and incremental chipping away at anchoring rights, period.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

The pilot or gram in most aspects especially here in St aut has nothing to do with the mooring.

It's just hat under state law, they can only ban anchoring in mooring fields and they wanted to ban it a bunh more place. So no you can't anchor within 150' of anything or in the entire south half of salt run.

The state anchoring law will not allow for any additional limits on anchoring. I do not think the state legislature has the will or desire to rewrite the entire law.

you don't see this happening with guns do you? Several southern counties would like to restrict firearms in playounds and parks. State won't let them. why should the anchor bearers get screwed?

I disagree with you, but let me provide a basis for my thinking.

Those that manipulate politicians can't see guns, so that's not a good analogy. But they do see boats anchored in front of their expensive homes. Below is evidence of 2 legislators that introduced bills at the state level to allow muni's to write their own rules. These obviously went no where due to the mooring pilot program, but the point is these politicians still receive campaign monies from those living in waterfront homes, and will try again as soon as they 'can'.

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sectio...1&Session=2010

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sectio...6&Session=2010

And accompanying first hand story about the person prompting the above legislators to 'do something about those boats ruining my view'.

Cruiser's Net » Archive » Anchoring Incident in Miami Beach

I believe the above will become rampant again without some give and take at the state level. The pilot program offers a muni a choice, but it's not a piece of cake to operate a mooring field just to get a 'better view'.

Hence, we need to be careful what we ask for.

[Nicholson58]

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

Well if you want future anchoring in Florida, a price will have to be paid.

I can purchase liability insurance for my boat for under $200 a year. 6 months on transient moorings would cost around $3600 if paying by the night.

In 10 years I can foresee all towns installing and forcing the use of moorings if this thing goes the wrong way.

I'm so bloody thrilled. We pay 1500 for three months in the water on Lake Michigan.

It is in the interest of the state and towns to encourage the biggest combined business to thrive. Every time the Gov't decides to tax or otherwise restrict preferentially, the target business suffers or dies. Draconian taxes in Michigan some years back forced 1/4 of our marinas to fold and 4 of the 5 boat builders to fail. At the same time, they taxed disproportionately, private planes, fur coats and expensive sports cars. All of these businesses also vaporized. People with mobile hobbies & lifestyles will simply take their toys & money elsewhere. It is not OK to control behavior by taking money from people. Contrary to popular belief, gov't types do not know better how to spend your money than you do. Enact POLICY, not money grabs. If crappy, un-seaworthy boats is the issue, there is a better way to address it than to prevent EVERYONE from boating.

[Boatguy30]

Yes, getting rid of boats is cheap here. You can take a 30' fiberglass to the dump for a few hundred bucks. A few hundred bucks to haul and trailer. Less a few hundred in parts and scrap metal you recoup.

The problem is the antique boat registration. Any boat over 30 yrs old registers for $5 a year. A newer 30' boat cost more like around $120 a year depending on county. So most "derelicts" a properly $5 registered "boats in navigation"

Hence the insurance idea. Or maybe change the definition of antique boat.

I'm for anything that won't continue to erode boaters rights.


I don't believe for a second FWC is on our side. they just want more, bigger boats and more money and if further "study" promotes that agenda they are all for it.

I'm still unsure why we need CG, FWC, border control, city police, all "protecting" us on local waters?