Anchoring etiquette

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by nhschneider

If we select a spot where we’d like to drop our hook and there’s someone anchored in the vicinity, we’ll often ask them what they think of our anchoring in that location. I have frequently found that showing deference prompts cooperation, sometimes even an invitation for sundowners (which we usually politely refuse). I’m sure that there have been times when we’ve been rebuffed but none comes to mind. Even though sometimes it’s as irritating as fingernails on a chalk board, I try to be civil and accommodating when someone anchors too close to us.

Great approach. We do the same on the occassions we share an anchorage. As we're passing through I ask anyone around: "How's the holding? How much do you have out? Do you mind if we anchor over here?..."

This not only gives me useful information, it also breaks some barriers, shows some deference and interest in their skills, and makes us colleagues as opposed to strangers.

Talking to people is the best way to defuse any issues. But if that's not possible, all the next-boat-in can do is anchor safely, and in a way that follows accepted norms.

[Auklet]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Snipet coped from https://forums.ybw.com/index.php?thr...rivals.386065/

EDIT:

OK, this is a quote from the Pardeys' The Capable Cruiser. They were analysing a storm in 1982 which damaged a lot of anchored boats, many of them terminally. A lot of trouble was caused by boats anchoring too close, either blowing down onto each other or blocking the way out to safe water clear of the beach. One of the boats which survived unscathed did so because the owner insisted on his space being kept clear, even though his continually ordering people away embarrassed his wife. The case they refer to was another thirty years before:

In accordance with U.S. Admiralty court decisions, Bill Peterson was definitely acting within his rights. On page 310 and 311 of Knights Modern Seamanship 12th Edition, published 1956, the Juniata decision no. 124―5861 is shown in its entirety. The basic reasoning of the courts was:
"A Vessel shall be found at fault if it
[...]
h - anchors so close to another anchored vessel as to foul her when swinging,
i - fails to shift anchorage when dragging dangerously close to another anchored vessel.
Futhermore, the vessel that anchors first shall warn the one who anchored last that the berth chosen will foul the former’s berth."

It has long been accepted yachting etiquette that the first boat in has the right to ask that others give it not only room to swing, but also room to maneuver out safely. So although Bill Peterson may have offended some people who arrived at the Cape after he did, his actions probably saved his boat.

End quote.

Just some FYI here. The Juniata case (decision) record is 124 F. 861 from 1903. It's evidently been miscited repeatedly. However, it basically takes access to Westlaw to uncover this fact. (No, I am not a lawyer.)

The second point is that the verbiage reported above is not so written in record 124 F. 861. One reads that a vessel coming to anchor near one already anchored is obliged to leave sufficient space for that anchored vessel to remain safely anchored even if it must veer more rode to prevent dragging in high winds. I read nothing about warning, or giving notification to, the newcomer. Perhaps something that has been added to case law more recently.

Juniata 124 F. 861 US Admiralty Court, E.D. Virginia, 1903:

A ‘safe berth‘ should not be construed to mean one from which probable accident might not arise, but ample space; that is, taking into consideration all the exigencies likely to arise, either by reason of the character of the harbor, the conditions of the weather, and the season of the year, no danger of collision would arise, and close calculations should not be made, and risks run in giving room; doubts should be solved with a view of securing safety, having in view the possible contingencies that might arise, making it necessary for each vessel to take greater space than was apparently required at the moment; and particularly is this true where amply anchorage space existed, as it did on this occasion.

I take all this to mean that a newcomer should not crowd a vessel already "safely anchored" in attempt to "share" a preferred location when there is other anchorage space amply available. (And then complain about the other guy already there!)

[Nomad57]

Reading this thread brings to mind an odd situation I encountered back in the '90s. There was a boat (made by a manufacturer favored by first time buyers) anchored in an anchorage, and we tucked into a nook behind them. They then reset their bow and stern hooks in such a way that we were effectively blocked in. We had a hard time getting out the next morning, almost ending up on the rocks. The smirk on the captainette's face suggested to me that this was intentional.


I figured they had first dibs, since they got there first, but I have wondered whether this "rule" applied AFTER they reset their hooks, after we had anchored. Did they still have "first in" anchoring rights?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Nomad57

Reading this thread brings to mind an odd situation I encountered back in the '90s. There was a boat (made by a manufacturer favored by first time buyers) anchored in an anchorage, and we tucked into a nook behind them. They then reset their bow and stern hooks in such a way that we were effectively blocked in. We had a hard time getting out the next morning, almost ending up on the rocks. The smirk on the captainette's face suggested to me that this was intentional.


I figured they had first dibs, since they got there first, but I have wondered whether this "rule" applied AFTER they reset their hooks, after we had anchored. Did they still have "first in" anchoring rights?

No, of course not. They were just dyck-heads. But this is the problem with the so-called "first in" rule. I prefer to be driven by basic civility and common purpose.

[Auklet]

There’s no real problem with the “rule.” More than anything else it’s an accepted, as well as codified, standard for anchoring near others who are already set and who may have been there for days. The problem is more the skippers who choose to disregard it if even aware of it, or try to find some justification to get around it if they are. It takes no training or demonstration of seamanship to buy a boat and show up at an anchorage to spend the weekend. Most of the time one has no idea the skill set of someone trying to anchor nearby until witnessing a debacle. I do not myself feel comfortable with other skippers (strangers) wishing to “crowd” me. Several times I’ve interrupted anchoring attempts near me to either request, or in some cases demand, they move at least 200 ft away, That’s based on 40 ft LOA plus 100 to 120 ft of rode usually deployed in areas where we frequently anchor. So, there’s a margin there. It’s very uncomfortable to have a 40-ton boat arrive late and proceed to anchor (or attempt to anchor) up wind where it finally comes to rest swinging barely a boat length away when there is ample space elsewhere. There is no common purpose here in my opinion. The skipper is intruding my legitimate space, my “safe berth”, and does not seem to care a twit about wrecking my up-until-then pleasant setting. You may be talking to someone who simply does not follow.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Auklet

There’s no real problem with the “rule.” More than anything else it’s an accepted, as well as codified, standard for anchoring near others who are already set and who may have been there for days. The problem is more the skippers who choose to disregard it if even aware of it, or try to find some justification to get around it if they are. It takes no training or demonstration of seamanship to buy a boat and show up at an anchorage to spend the weekend. Most of the time one has no idea the skill set of someone trying to anchor nearby until witnessing a debacle. I do not myself feel comfortable with other skippers (strangers) wishing to “crowd” me. Several times I’ve interrupted anchoring attempts near me to either request, or in some cases demand, they move at least 200 ft away, That’s based on 40 ft LOA plus 100 to 120 ft of rode usually deployed in areas where we frequently anchor. So, there’s a margin there. It’s very uncomfortable to have a 40-ton boat arrive late and proceed to anchor (or attempt to anchor) up wind where it finally comes to rest swinging barely a boat length away when there is ample space elsewhere. There is no common purpose here in my opinion. The skipper is intruding my legitimate space, my “safe berth”, and does not seem to care a twit about wrecking my up-until-then pleasant setting. You may be talking to someone who simply does not follow.

I think having a totally dogmatic position like that isn’t realistic in popular anchorages. You can “ request” or “ demand “ all you like but most often you will be ignored and the other boat will anchor anyway. I agree if the anchorage is empty no one should be crowded but popular anchorages are popular

Ultimately if you’re not happy your only option is to move.

[Auklet]

Yeah, well, as we all know it's up to the other skipper to decide if s/he's allowing ample space when the hook goes down. I'm never "harassed" it seems; it's either that others are more tolerant than I am, or that I'm a more thoughtful respecter of the "rules" and allow anchored yachts their proper space. When I ask, other skippers usually respond "You're fine." But I have seen knock-down, drag-outs among others taking place around me at times. If I tell someone I think he's laying too close I might get a perfunctory shortening of some rode. Not often does someone actually pick up and move unless s/he is unhappy with how the yacht is laying to.

[Auklet]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I think having a totally dogmatic position like that isn’t realistic in popular anchorages.

Ultimately if you’re not happy your only option is to move.

Actually, there’s more to it regarding accommodation in “popular anchorages.” We say “popular anchorages” but most of the rub comes from “competition” for select sites within the “popular anchorages.” If you arrive when there is no one else around and you drop the hook, veer appropriate scope, and settle in you’re doing what’s normal. The weekend arrives and with it a slow, but steady accumulation of boats in the anchorage. They are well spaced initially. Eventually, the anchorage fills to “capacity” at proper spacing particularly in or near the best sites. Best view, best holding, best protection, best beach access, etc.

What happens next? A late arriver comes in and does not wish to anchor on the outskirts of the field of basically well-spaced boats but wishes to cruise deep into the anchorage and “shoehorn” into spaces between two other boats in good spots at proper distances apart. If the two boats are properly spaced, then this would be intrusion into both “safe berths.” So, what’s the deal? “Well, this is a popular anchorage so I’m entitled to squeeze in here. BTW, you’re hogging more than your share of limited space.” “Son, when I arrived there was no one in here but me. I haven’t moved. But now I’m a hogger of space because you arrived and declined to take a berth further out where there are fewer boats?” “You should have anticipated my arrival; I come here often.”

So now, it’s up to me to move as my only option? Yes. It might be best to just deal with it until the weekend has past and people leave.

[Bobby Lex]

Originally Posted by Auklet

Actually, there’s more to it regarding accommodation in “popular anchorages.” A late arriver comes in and does not wish to anchor on the outskirts of the field of basically well-spaced boats but wishes to cruise deep into the anchorage and “shoehorn” into spaces between two other boats in good spots at proper distances apart. If the two boats are properly spaced, then this would be intrusion into both “safe berths.” So, what’s the deal?

IOW "first-come-first-serve" conflicts with "there's always room for one more boat".

There is no hard and fast rule that applies to resolve these conflicting "rules" under all circumstances. That's where common sense and community problem-solving skills are called for. But common sense isn't all that common, and problem-solving requires a spirit of cooperation, which is also not all that common.

So, that's the deal. Unfortunately.

Bob

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

. . . But this is the problem with the so-called "first in" rule. I prefer to be driven by basic civility and common purpose.

"Basic civility and common purpose" is part of good seamanship. This supplements, with no contradiction, the law.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

"Basic civility and common purpose" is part of good seamanship. This supplements, with no contradiction, the law.

[Auklet]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

"Basic civility and common purpose" is part of good seamanship. This supplements, with no contradiction, the law.

I can see how this applies to members of a crew on a ship or a yacht with a common purpose to make a destination or compete in a race, and therefore the members should interact with civility toward one another to achieve that common purpose. This point of view probably applies to many types of interactions that actually do have a common purpose evident to all or most of those involved. So that would encourage good seamanship.

But I don’t see how a newcomer crowding into an anchorage area, or wishing to, represents “common purpose” with the skipper(s) who is (are) there already. Seems more like: “You give, I take.” Moreover, I don’t see how creating a greater risk of collision by reducing the available space around an anchored yacht represents good seamanship. If you review the Juniata law case I cite above (post #92) it clearly conveys that [the skipper] should not take a narrow view (i.e., close calculation) of the amount of space granted but rather act on the side greater safety. Just look at the COLREGS where the point is frequently made that every skipper has a duty to avoid circumstances that might, or do, lead to a collision. In such cases of increasing the risk of collision “the law” would not be supplemented or reinforced.

So, forgive. I disagree that altering one’s scope, for example, perhaps to the point of significantly reducing the holding power of one’s ground tackle, to permit another vessel to anchor too near for the evident “common purpose” of experiencing a good weekend for all, or whatever, supports good seamanship or is an example thereof, or supplements maritime laws. Maybe social harmony among the boaters who are present, but I question whether good seamanship.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Auklet

I can see how this applies to members of a crew on a ship or a yacht with a common purpose to make a destination or compete in a race, and therefore the members should interact with civility toward one another to achieve that common purpose. This point of view probably applies to many types of interactions that actually do have a common purpose evident to all or most of those involved. So that would encourage good seamanship.

But I don’t see how a newcomer crowding into an anchorage area, or wishing to, represents “common purpose” with the skipper(s) who is (are) there already. Seems more like: “You give, I take.” Moreover, I don’t see how creating a greater risk of collision by reducing the available space around an anchored yacht represents good seamanship. If you review the Juniata law case I cite above (post #92) it clearly conveys that [the skipper] should not take a narrow view (i.e., close calculation) of the amount of space granted but rather act on the side greater safety. Just look at the COLREGS where the point is frequently made that every skipper has a duty to avoid circumstances that might, or do, lead to a collision. In such cases of increasing the risk of collision “the law” would not be supplemented or reinforced.

So, forgive. I disagree that altering one’s scope, for example, perhaps to the point of significantly reducing the holding power of one’s ground tackle, to permit another vessel to anchor too near for the evident “common purpose” of experiencing a good weekend for all, or whatever, supports good seamanship or is an example thereof, or supplements maritime laws. Maybe social harmony among the boaters who are present, but I question whether good seamanship.

Well, I'll have to respectfully disagree with this.

"Common purpose" is behaving in a manner which accommodates other people on the sea, towards the end of everyone getting there safely and enjoying the passage. "Good seamanship" is using your skill for the benefit of our fellow mariners, and not just our narrow selfish interests. That's because there is more safety (and enjoyment) when sailors look out for each other; and less safety when we regard it as a dog-eat-dog situation. A lot less safety. The ancient traditions of seamanship are strongly based on this principle.

Taking reasonable measures to accommodate a newcomer in a crowded anchorage, including shortening scope to a reasonable extent, including doing other things which might marginally increase one's own risk, is just the right thing to do, the seamanlike thing to do.

"Moreover, I don’t see how creating a greater risk of collision by reducing the available space around an anchored yacht represents good seamanship."

This is meaningless without a scale. Maximum safety for the first one into any anchorage, would be if everyone else would just fork off and go somewhere else, leaving that first comer alone in the anchorage. But we don't insist on "maximum safety"; we make room for others. We make reasonable compromises in safety for the sake of the interests of other people all the time. That's kind of fundamental to living with others in society.

Of course there are limits to this, and once the anchorage is really full and really can't accommodate anyone else, it's a different matter. But it's possible to pack in quite a lot of boats into a given area of an anchorage, with intersecting swinging circles, and not have a problem. Boats swinging into each other at anchor is actually pretty rare, and when it does happen, it's rarely a hugely destructive disaster.

People should chill out and be kind to one another, and act like seamen, and not like freaked out landsmen. All this fear and loathing is usually a sign of inexperience -- it's certainly not seamanlike.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

People should chill out and be kind to one another, and act like seamen, and not like freaked out landsmen. All this fear and loathing is usually a sign of inexperience -- it's certainly not seamanlike.

Nicely put.

[Auklet]

Well, I suppose an examination of definition is in order.

By: Zeke Quezada, ASA Learn To Sail, Sailing Tips

Seamanship is the art of operating a vessel. Specifically, it is a compilation of the skills and knowledge entailed in navigation, boat handling, maintenance, and the law of the sea. It involves working as part of a crew and when the occasion arises, leading a crew in the role of a skipper.

Seamanship involves every aspect of a boat from being tied up to the dock to the operation in open water. A proficient seaman creates a culture of awareness, safety, and confidence in the crew and the operation of a vessel at all times

Seamanship involves leading, teaching, managing, navigating, and maintaining all aspects of the operation and activity aboard the vessel.

What I read in here is that true seamanship holds an obligation to look out for the operational safety of vessel and crew. Namely, my vessel and my crew. The only obligations to other vessels I know of is to do what is necessary to avoid collision and to assist if possible when in peril. Whatever the merits of your arguments, in the end, if I believe a vessel is near enough to me to threaten its safety and that of its crew, my duty is to ward that vessel off if possible. Even if at anchor or when attempting to anchor. Not to "accommodate" that skipper and crew, about whom of their skills I know nothing or of their own level of respective seamanship. The guidelines, protocols, and laws are out there. IMO it would be a better community service to boaters to follow them than to seek justifications for avoiding them.