OK fellow cruisers, let me warn you in advance. This is a long, complicated posting, but it’s well worth the attention of ANYONE who is even vaguely interested in the issue of Florida Anchoring Rights. Read on!

Back in April (2012), I was given permission to excerpt from an article contained in “Sandy’s St. Augustine Blog.” I waited a bit for more developments to come forth, as is now the case.

Greetings to all the ships at sea and all the ports of call.
The ordinances for the pilot program have been in force for over a month now.
(See complete ordinance at http://www.staugustinegovernment.com/the-city/featured-stories-archive/mooring3.cfm )
The first ticket was recently issued for violation of the ordinances. If you are a cruiser following the progress of the program, you need to know that our city is a perfect place for boaters of all kinds. Rest assured that the folks who live here on their boats are at the ready to defend our anchoring rights in their entirety. There is no need to avoid our town whether you anchor out, use a mooring or get a slip. Please refer to my separate blog regarding law enforcement and you will understand it all . . .
Ok, with all this in mind, let me get back to the point.  Our local guy,  Mike McDougal, also known as Wolfy, has been invited to leave or go to a mooring ball.  Police man Jerry, aka famous Jerry city water cop, has issued him a ticket and Wolfy has retained an attorney.  Famous Jerry was as professional as ever when he gave out the ticket.  Wolf told me that he really had to try hard to get that ticket and as usual famous Jerry was considerate and polite.   Jerry has always been extremely professional while carrying out his duties as city water cop.
Visit our site often (http://sandysta.wordpress.com/) for updates on how this will lay out. Let’s all hope for a peaceful and prosperous solution. Let’s all remember that boaters also have civic responsibilities to attend to. Just because you live on a boat does not mean you need not be a good citizen of the town in which you live. The city has a big birthday party coming up and she needs to look nice. If your boat looks crappy then clean it up. Don’t dump your raw sewage into my river or I will get you myself. If you are anchored 50 feet from a marine structure then you need to move because you are just being crazy. Any half decent mariner knows better than to anchor within 2 or 3 hundred feet of someone’s dock. Fifty feet from a dock is not enough. If you have a choice of which side of the river to anchor on , like we do in the New Colony of Vilano, then anchor on the marsh side where you don’t have to sit right in front of somebody’s dock. Don’t be stupid. I have my eye on you guys. Love you all, love our city too. Get ready for another great cruising season!!!!

Then, on 5/1/12, here comes notes from Captain Doreen and my buddy Captain Chuck Baier:

Cruising News:
Check out the very latest on the Pilot Program case in court now in St.Augustine: http://sandysta.wordpress.com/

I guess someone decided to challenge the city in court on the anchoring regulations. Who know what could come of it.
http://sandysta.wordpress.com/
Chuck

So, I went to Sandy’s site, and discovered the following, very interesting article!!!!

UPDATE: DAY IN COURT FOR ST AUGUSTINE PILOT PROGRAM
Posted on April 30, 2012 by mayor sandy
Lord have mercy!!!! We didn’t lose yet. There was quite a show in the small court room today. Lots of lawyers and city big wigs gathered round. Lots of really big photos and aerial shots and witnesses and so on. And there sat Wolfy all by himself. We won’t need a lawyer till we reach federal court so Wolf took them on himself. He cited the constitutional articles, the navigational servitude clause and the preemptive clause authorizing federal control over “interstate waterways” ….what we know as the ICW. The city presented two precedents for consideration by the judge. Since it would take Wolfy some time to read these, Judge Tinlin continued the case until June 1, 2012 with no additional action to be taken by the city until Wolfy submits a written response to the case precedents and adjudication takes place. I took the liberty of spending four hours going over the precedents decisions and I have to say that for a while there I thought they really had us……….however, in the third reading I finally found out what was amiss. Turns out that both cases the city set forth had nothing to do with the federal navigable interstate waterways but the state coastal waterways. In my -not a lawyer- opinion, that is like apples and oranges. One case was regarding anchoring in the ocean offshore of Hawaii and the other was state coastal waterways of Santa Barbara California. Neither of these states even have a federal interstate waterway. Our city is dealing with the ICW…. a unique waterway under statutory control of the US Army Corp of Engineers. The preemptive clause for our river requires “national continuity” of regulations. So we will write a response and submit to Judge Tinlin asap. I am trying to make and post a copy of every legal document for public review. It’s not so easy for me to tend to secretarial duties as I myself am anchored …..FAR OUT. Stay tuned though, I will get everything copied and post it here. Let freedom ring.

Wow, that’s a lot to absorb. So, I wrote to my good friend and St. Augustine Port Commissioner, Captain Jay Bliss, and asked him if he could help the cruising community understand a bit more about what was going on here. I received the following reply:

Greetings Claiborne,
We ALL need help on this one. Sandy is a positive force hereabouts, and her rapidfire delivery on the phone leaves me as confused as her blog. I did not attend, knew nada of the the court appearance, thus can’t clarify anything. Todays Record (http://www.staugustine.com) covered the news also, but from my experience, is not to be counted upon. I hope to attend the next court appearance in June. What I know:
Michael MacDougall got a ticket for illegal anchoring on the San Sebastian river. The ordinance he violated is one of six ordinances enacted as part of the FFWCC ‘s Pilot Program. Should the ordinance be found in violation of constitutional rights, or of overstepping federal navigational servitudes, or violating public trust doctrines, then that portion of the ordinance will be struck down. Boaters will still have to abide by the remaining rules until/unless those are taken to court. The ordinance is http://www.staugustinegovernment.com/visitors/documents/Ord2011-10-2.pdf
The main thrust of Florida’s Pilot Program seems to be to generate a tidal current to wash boaters into established mooring fields. Municipal revenues are generated. The constitutional freedoms and rights that individuals enjoy within our United States seem to be diluted by proposed and existing Pilot Program ordinances.
City of St Augustine requires that no portion of your anchored boat be closer than 50 feet from the boundary (edge of, if one can draw a defining line of a meandering river) of the San Sebastian. Captain MacDougall’s boat apparently infringed on that boundary. Boaters and the general public can sit back and marvel at our sense of what’s important, what occupies our governments, and how our courts respond.
St Augustine marine businesses serve the boating community well. City-run moorings are a convenience and affordable. Ordinances that outlaw anchoring and attempt to create a municipal monopoly are unwarranted, unnecessary, and probably unconstitutional.
Jay Bliss

OK, here’s my take on all of this. It appears that a fellow boat owner, “Wolfie,” in St. Augustine has the wherewithal to take the city of St. Augustine into Federal court, and challenge the whole idea that a city, county or even the state of Florida can establish anchorage regulations on what are apparently considered Federal waters. Many of us have been hoping for years and years that someone who had the means would do this very thing. Now, we will all wait for the June, 2012 court date, and see what happens. The final results of this case could have the most profound impact on Florida Anchoring Rights since this issue reared its ugly head in the early 1990′s!

And, reaction from our fellow cruisers:

Florida’s proposed mooring fields and restrictions on anchoring.
Anchoring is an act of navigation, navigation is under the jurisdiction of Admiralty Courts. Admiralty Courts exist only at the federal level. It is not only that a plaintiff has immediate appeal to the admiralty, it does not make any sense to continue to fight these restrictions at the state level and incur all of the expense and waste of time that such a process requires.

Once again the boating public is responding to the state’s attempt at control of navigation on its waters (which by definition are navigable water of the United States) by playing their game when they have stacked their rules against the boating public. The state or municipality pass laws, issue tickets, and the plaintiffs respond by getting lawyers to fight them in state courts. In general the history of such law suits have been decided against the boaters and merely rule on the efficacy of the state legislated laws. If having gone through the lengthy and expensive litigations at the state level (remember that lawyers get paid by the hour and the longer it takes the better for them) the state court ruling is challenged at the federal level and the state merely drops the charges and there is nothing for the federal court to rule upon.

The laws of the United States are superior to state laws and state laws in conflict must yield. Likewise the Federal Court rulings are supreme. State courts are supposed to take these superior court decisions into account and comply accordingly. Unfortunately if federal rulings are never presented they are almost never considered by the state courts.

With the foregoing in mind consider the following rulings and laws which exist at the National Level, all of which are superior to any state legislation:
1.U. S. Constitution, Article III, Sec 2.1
“The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, … (and) to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction …”
2.U.S. Supreme Court, Butler v. Boston Steamship Co. 130 US 557, 141 US 1, Detroit Trust Co. v. The Thomas Baslum 293 US 21, 42
“As the constitution extends the judicial power of the United States to ‘all admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,’ and as this jurisdiction is held to be exclusive, the power of legislation on the same subject must necessarily be in the national legislature and not in the state legislatures.”
3.U.S. Supreme Court, Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart 253 US 149, 164
“Congress cannot transfer its legislative power to the states, … by nature this in nondelegable.”
4.U.S. Supreme Court, State of Washington v. Dawson 264 U.S. 219
In responding to and overturning a lower court decision where a state was attempting to apply a local state law to all vessels which visit or navigate in the state the U.S. Supreme Court decreed: “This cause presents a situation where there was no attempt to prescribe general rules. On the contrary the manifest purpose was to permit any state to alter the maritime law, and thereby introduce conflicting requirements. To prevent this result the Constitution adopted the law of the sea as the measure of maritime rights and obligations. The confusion and difficulty if vessels were compelled to comply with the local statutes at every port, are not difficult to see. Of course, some within the states may prefer local rules, but the Union was formed with the very definite design of freeing maritime commerce from intolerable restrictions incident to such control. The subject is national. Local interests must yield to the common welfare. The Constitution is supreme.”
5.U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol 30, 55th Congress, Sess 425, Sec. 10 states:
“That the creation of any obstruction not affirmatively authorized by Congress, to the navigable capacity of any of the waters of the United States is hereby prohibited; …”
6.U.S. Supreme Court, State of Wisconsin v. State of Illinois 362 US 482
The phrase “not affirmatively authorized by Congress” as opposed to the phrase “affirmatively authorized by law” which was used in an earlier similar law (51st Congress …) makes mere state authorization inadequate.”
7.U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Republic Steel Corp. I11 362 US 482
The diminution of navigable capacity is an obstruction to navigation. “Obstruction to navigation is not limited to structures specifically, but also includes diminution of navigable capacity by other means.” {(personal comment) The State declaring areas where anchoring is not allowed is certainly a diminution of navigational capacity.}
8.U.S. Law 28 USC 1333
Admiralty jurisdiction covers every vessel under the American Flag, whether it is on the ocean or within the boundaries of a state, no matter what size or means of propulsion, or whether it is documented or not.
9.Federal District Court, Anderson v. Reames 161 S.W.2d 957 961
“…’rights of navigation’ include the right to anchorage, which may be exercised for either business purposes or pleasure.”
10.Federal District Court, Hayn v. Culliford 3 C.P.Eiv 417
“’navigation’ for some purpose, includes a period when a ship is not in motion, as, for instance, when she is at anchor.”
11.U.S. Supreme Court, Lewis Blue Point Oyster Cultivation Co. v. Briggs 229 US 82
When overturning a lower court case the U.S. Supreme Court said: “If the public right of navigation is the dominant right, and if, as must be the case, the title of the owner of the bed of navigable waters hold subject absolutely to the public right of navigation, this dominant right must include the right to the use of the bed of water for every purpose which is in aid of navigation.”
12.U.S. Law 33 USC 471 Chap 10
“The Secretary of Homeland Security is authorized, empowered, and directed to define and establish anchorage grounds for vessel in all harbors, rivers, bays and other navigable waters of the United States whenever it is manifest to the said secretary that the maritime or commercial interest of the United States require such anchorage grounds for the safe navigation….” {(personal comment) when the language “authorized, empowered, and directed” is used it implies sole authority to perform the named act.}
The list could go on and on, surprising what a little research can find. The Boating Public is a definite minority and it is only by the laws which exist in this country can navigational rights be protected.
As another note, if the state or municipality establishes a mooring field and it is not a federally designated “special anchorage area” all vessels moored there are required by law to show anchor lights at night and during periods of reduced visibility. It is only vessels under 65 feet, when at anchor in a “special anchorage area”, which are exempt. This is not even considering the danger of collision with an unmarked and unlighted mooring ball.
Robert Driscoll

A rousing hand and congratulations for Mr Driscoll for an excellent and authoritative explanation of the Federal laws and court opinions governing all navigable waters of the United States. Let’s hope Wolfies lawyer removes his case to Federal court and uses Mr Driscoll’s work product. All the boating community, not only cruisers, should support the effort to keep local politics out of our navigable waters. There are better ways to address the issue of derelict vessels and most of these pilot program ordinances even recognize the local authorities right to ticket and remove violators.
Charles Waygood, Sr.

Our earlier posting about the bizarre proposal to partially file northern Lake Worth, plant sea grass beds there, and displace the anchorage and local mooring field (see http://cruisersnet.net/?p=83767), is already soooo lenghty, we are posting cruising community reaction here, in this separate article.

Claiborne,
As a cruiser, I appreciate your response to this issue. Since your email to me indicates that you were aware of the problem before I wrote you, I cannot and will not take credit for bringing the matter to your notice. Let it suffice to say that I am glad the news is ‘on the air’ so to speak. I hope your treatment of the issue may evoke further cruiser responses. I think, however, that a small rambling on my part may give you a sense of my disgust and anger about how things get done in (what I call) the Louisiana of the South East (not withstanding Rhode Island’s
or Youngstown, Ohio’s histories).
It appears that Palm Beach County is again engaged in its’ “business as usual policy”. Part their, “…as usual business,” is a seemingly sub-rosa directed-failure to involve those people who have interest(s) in many county based (and therefore tax based) issues, and public participation in them. Those issues are often clouded in secrecy, obfuscation, outright lying or patently illegal fraud. In a way, the old saw of ‘ Taxation Without Representation” comes to mind, not to mention the violation of Sunlight Laws and just plain questionable morality on a large scale.
Palm Beach county has a long history of this kind of activity. It is documented and punctuated by the convictions and resignations of numerous county officials. The county sustained “enforced” loss of membership in their “old boys club” due to action of the courts, exposure by the press and TV, and more rarely, by public outrage fueled by blatantly egregious behavior of their officials.
Now to my point, rambling, but a point none-the-less…
It seems that, given the county history and the fact that this is an election year, some kind of investigation (possibly forensic accounting) might well serve the needs of those of us who are or might be effected by this project. By this, I do not mean simply taking a look at the depth of the water as the product of the project and concluding that, yes, the water will get shallower and it may support sea grass. I mean an investigation that is detailed. It should include: those who let the contracts to whom, what common or associated interest(s) they have or have in the outcome(s), their interests and/or relationships (financial, political ((contributory)) or otherwise) to/with those fulfilling the contracts, what rewards or benefits they are to, will, or may receive, the role of the USACOE and its relationship to county officials and vendors, the effects of the project on the environment, county usage, boater usage, traffic (boat or otherwise), dredgeline placement and/or damage,past effects of similar project in the area, the relationship(s) of county officials to vendors and, neither last or least, the relationship of local property owners to the process. It should also take a good look at something county officials are always (would you say hippocritically) called accountabiity, something sorely lacking in PBC operations.
Thank you for your interest in my interest and your sustained activity on our behalf. As an active member of a large, international, Bahama-based yacht club, and one in south Florida, I will pass on what Information I can to you and my fellow cruisers.
Regards,
D Krakow,
M/V Pizzazz
Now laying Boat Harbour, Abacoa

A couple of comments on this. I don’t think much of that area has 15 feet of water right now. The maximum depth on the nautical chart is 14 feet, with more like 9-11 feet over the remainder. Also, there is a charted channel through the middle of it, along with several USCG daymarkers , an R10 and a G11, so I would imagine the USCG would have some say over this. The note for the charted channel says “8 feet reported 2000.” So, their hydrographic study seems rather incorrect. It seems like an absurd proposal, and it is hard to imagine that North Palm Beach shouldn’t have an equal say in what is allowed in that body of water.
John Kettlewell

I am strongly opposed to the filling of Lake Worth as outlined in Public Hearing by Army Corps of Engineers Permit Application No. SAJ- 2012- 00131 ( IP-EGR).
Bill Brubaker

Little Lake Worth is a favorite anchorage of mine in trips to the Bahamas. It is an easy anchorage for clearing in after returning, and shopping is conveinent. It would be a hardship on the boating community if the anchorage were eliminated or greatly reduced’
Joan Clark

I may be incorrect about this, but I was told a year or so ago that the wife of a very famous sports personality (not a current pro) objected to boats in the area.
If this is the scam it sounds like, it’s a very clever way to eliminate anchoring in this area, isn’t it?
Amazing the lengths to which these people will go if this is, indeed, the situation.
Wally Moran

Here’s a quick but important word about the anchorage regulations proposed by the city of St. Petersburg, in regards to this community’s participation in the Florida Pilot Mooring Field Program.

Re the anchoring restrictions: The comment period for the St Petersburg ordinance ended on March 18, but all should know that if adopted as proposed there will be no anchoring in the various basins except for a limited area in Bayboro Harbor, west of the entrance to the Harborage Marina.
Chuck Waygood Sr

I have been involved in the struggle for Florida anchoring rights, and, yes, also responsibilities, since 1992. In fact, I was asked on more than one occasion to become the Director of the old, now long defunct, Coalition of Concerned Boaters/National Water Rights Association. However, due to the constraints of my writing career, I had to decline.
My point is NOT to toot my own horn, but to help you understand I have a lot of experience in this matter, sometimes I think far too much. So, it with that perspective that I opine that the anchorage regulations detailed below by Captain Bonnie Bashem (yes, that really IS Bonnie’s name), are some of the most ludicrous and preposterous I have EVER seen! By the way, Bonnie is one of the Boat/US lead people in trying to bring some sense to this whole issue of the Florida Pilot Mooring Field Program – anchorage regulations. The entire cruising community owes a HUGE debt of gratitude to Bonnie, Captain Margaret Podlick, Captain David Kennedy and the entire Boat/US organization for their efforts to preserve our Florida anchoring rights!!!!
THANK GOODNESS, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission REJECTED the proposed Martin County/Stuart anchorage regulations, even before they were submitted for public comment. Be SURE to read this ENCOURAGING news from Captain Charmaine, and follow the link she provides for more info!
Let me just finish off this editorial rant with an observation. Up until now, my own point of view and the Salty Southeast Cruisers’ Net editorial policy, have firmly rejected calls for boycotting communities in Florida that propose draconian anchorage regulations as part of the Pilot Mooring Field Program, or even boycotting the entire state of Florida in general. Our preference has been to work within the system to try and bring some sense to this issue, with the full understanding that abandoned vessels and live-aboard derelicts ARE a genuine problem in the Sunshine Sate. THAT IS STILL MY OWN AND THIS PUBLICATION’S POINT OF VIEW. HOWEVER, if these sorts of absolutely ludicrous proposals continue, and, perish the thought, some actually become law/enforced regulations, all that could change!

Martin/Stuart were chosen as a “team” pilot project under the pilot project program created by MIAF, NMMA, BoatUS three years ago and placed in Ch. 327. At the time it was chosen, Stuart had a mooring field and Martin was seeking permits. As of today, that is still the case. Martin does not have all permits (it’s lacking the Corps permit) and therefore does not have a ‘properly permitted mooring field’ as required in the statutes.
Regardless, Martin proceeded with an ordinance and has included Stuart in its ordinance.Stuart passed a Resolution in Mid-December agreeing to the Martin regulation of Stuart. All of Jensen Beach is a NO ANCHORING zone; Manatee Pocket is regulated and the City has a 300 ft. no anchoring buffer.
THE ORDINANCE is scheduled to go before the FWC Commissioners May 2/3 in Crystal River.The ordinance is the most anti-boater, confused jumble of regulations I’ve ever seen. It makes the case for why we needed to create the program! It might actually make Miami Beach look reasonable.
Martin has refused to come to the table to negotiate with cruisers. They have not been much more willing to talk with FWC either from what I gather in a phone conversation with Stuart. They are hanging their hats on the fact that this is the “people’s ordinance” based on two short meetings filled with property owners.and held last September. The public hearing, first reading of the ordinance was not even “discovered” until 4 days before the Martin County Commission meeting.
Martin has taken the very cavalier attitude that they will force FWC to reject their ordinance and then perhaps sit down with stakeholders! This places FWC staff in the untenable position of taking an unresolved product forward, wasting the Commissioner’s time and forcing the Commission tobe the bad guy. What does Martin get for all this? The ability to say to constituents :FWC made us write a new ordinance. That is unfair to everyone involved or who should be involved.
In a publicly noticed meeting on March 13, only BOATUS, NMMA, Seven Seas Cruisers, DEP attended. The County did not send the attorney who wrote the ordinance. She was “too busy.” They sent an engineer who is not a boater. She tried, but she was at a distinct disadvantage.We all were treated to the the unwillingness and inability to enter a dialog with stakeholders which at times was beyond rude.
We spent 4.5 hours asking questions only to receive flip responses and or be asked to sit there are rewrite whole sections of their ordinance while their attorney pondered the meaning of the word “is.” Even if we had been successful in wordsmithing, the language would not have gone back to Martin/Stuart.
Boat/US is demanding that Martin/Stuart voluntarily remove themselves from the agenda. We also are demanding that the representatives of the two governments be given authority to negotiate changes to the ordinance.
Comments regarding this ordinance and the st. Pete ordinance can be found at the FWC pilot project web site. I have attached the BoatUS letter regarding the Martin/Stuart ordinance.
In summary, our concerns are:
1. Infractions of this ordinance are criminal and will remain on the boater’s record for life. If you anchor just shy of the 300 ft. or 1,000 ft. buffer, you will be a criminal.
2. Jensen Beach, where the Martin county mooring field will ultimately be positioned has a 1,000 Ft. buffer from shore to the mooring field and out on all sides!. When asked why the county is regulating anchoring before the mooring field is in place, the response was “because we can.”
3. The anchoring restrictions could be read to include the fisherman just stopping to fish.
4. The ordinance attempts to make use of the original St. Augustine definitions. However it does not use the full definition nor does it use the definition in the same context. Thus, the definitions are tortured and make no sense.
5. The 300 ft. buffer may make sense behind the Stuart mooring field – but we have asked for 75 ft. in the remainder of the county. when asked why the 300 ft. buffer the response was “it was easier for us to write the ordinance if we just had one buffer distance.”
6. In order to prove sea=worthiness the boater must travel, under its own power,to a “designated location” (undefined and unmarked) twice a year.
7. In order to prove “operability” the cruiser must show a recent successful inspection by the Coast Guard Auxiliary. Thus, a voluntary program is being used in a regulatory manner. Failure to show that successful inspection would make the boater a criminal.
If you go to http://myfwc.com/boating/anchoring and mooring you should find the ordinances and the opportunity to comment. The public comment period ends SUNDAY, MARCH 18 at midnight. However, I believe FWC will take comments sent to Thomas.Shipp@myfwc.com for a couple of days beyond that.
I am happy to discuss further. I’m just trying to get some folks down in the area affected to know what’s going on and to start rattling some cages about taking this off the FWC agenda and forcing Martin to be responsible. We have worked too hard on the pilot project to have it treated as some “joke” that this county and city can “game.”
Bonnie Basham

Click Here to Read the BoatU.S. Comments to City of Stuart-Martin County on Proposed Anchoring Ordinances March 2012-2

I’m very pleased to present the report below from Captain Charmaine Smith Ladd, our very special Florida Keys Correspondent, and the Director of BARR (Boaters’s Anchoring Rights and Responsibilities).

The FWC has finally flexed their muscles on ridiculous proposals for ordinances within the Pilot Program. Stuart/Martin County was asking for a 1000 ft. buffer zone from all shoreline. Incredible. Fortunately, the FWC has rejected it and asked them to rewrite it as it does not adhere to the objectives of the PP as written. This is a great change, Claiborne! A GREAT CHANGE!
Here’s the link where your readers can see the letter sent from the FWC to Kathy Fitzpatrick of Stuart/Martin County:
http://marinersbarr.org/fpp/docs/stuart/20120319-FWC-rejection.pdf
Hugs,
Charmaine

The 1000 feet from shore in Stuart is a sick joke–three is absolutely no justification for that other than cranky homeowners who don’t want to see boats outside their windows. It basically eliminates anchoring there because you have to be so far offshore there is absolutely no protection from wind or wakes. Apparently, they are just ignoring the part of the law that says these regulations must “promote access to the waters of this state.”
John Kettlewell

 

The entire process in Stuart has been a bad joke – the lawyer dealing with this issue there seems to think she calls the shots. Nice to see that the FWC has made it clear that’s not the case; I hope she gets the message.
I agree with Bonnie, Stuart/Martin County should be removed from the program so that the rest of this state recognizes that it is not an exercise in (forgive the pun Bonnie) boater ‘bashing’…
Wally Moran

Stuart/Martin County has made a mockery of the Pilot Program. The powers that be there have total disregard for boaters and cruisers. It would be best for all concerned if the FWC removed Stuart/Martin County from being a participant in the Pilot Program. It is beyond question they have no intention of participating and are instead hell bent on discriminating! There should be zero tolerance for this type of behavior. I applaud the stand Boat US is taking and am very happy to know they are seeing clearly the utter nonsense that boaters and cruisers are dealing with here in the State of Florida. It is time overdue for the madness to end.
Charmaine

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS
4400 PGA BOULEVARD, SUITE 500
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA 33410
JANUARY 31, 2012

PUBLIC NOTICE
Permit Application No. SAJ-2012-00131(IP-EGR)
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: This district has received an application for a Department of
the Army permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1344) and Section
10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. §403) as described below:
APPLICANT: Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners
Department of Environmental Resources Management
C/o Robert Robbins, Director
2300 North Jog Road, 4th Floor
West Palm Beach, Florida 33411
WATERWAY & LOCATION: The project is located in navigable waters of the United States,
in Lake Worth Lagoon, east of 1300 U.S. Highway 1, North Palm Beach (Section 4, Township
42 South, Range 43 East), in Palm Beach County, Florida.
Directions to the site are as follows: From I-95 in Palm Beach Gardens, exit PGA Boulevard and
head east to U.S. Highway 1. Head south on U.S. Highway 1 to the project site located in Lake
Worth Lagoon, east of 1300 U.S. Highway 1.
LATITUDE & LONGITUDE: Latitude 26.839° North
Longitude 80.055° West
PROJECT PURPOSE:
Basic: The basic project purpose is to enhance the aquatic environment.
Overall: The overall project purpose is to create seagrass habitat in eastern Palm Beach County.
PROPOSED WORK: The applicant proposes to cap approximately 42 acres of muck sediment
in a dredge hole (average depth -17 feet NAVD) area known as Turtle Cove with approximately
640,000 cubic yards of sand to create approximately 37.8 acres of seagrass habitat with an
elevation of -6 feet NAVD. The project includes signage for seagrass protection. The applicant
has not requested compensatory mitigation credit for the project.
Avoidance and Minimization Information: The applicant has provided the following information
in support of efforts to avoid and/or minimize impacts to the aquatic environment: The project
would result in improved aquatic habitat within the project area. Temporary construction
turbidity would be minimized through the use of turbidity curtains. The construction
methodology, including the construction of a submerged perimeter berm with subsequent fill
placed on the inside of the berm, would minimize turbidity in surrounding waters.
Compensatory Mitigation: The applicant has provided the following explanation why
compensatory mitigation should not be required: No impacts to seagrass or any other special
aquatic site are proposed. The project would result in a net increase in seagrass habitat based on
the success of similar projects completed by the applicant in Lake Worth Lagoon including the
Snook Islands Natural Area and the Ibis Isle Restoration Project.
EXISTING CONDITIONS: The project site consists of an open water dredge hole with an
average depth of -17 feet North American Vertical Datum (NAVD) and a minimum depth of -14
feet NAVD. The project site contains an average of 10 feet of muck sediment with no seagrass
based on project area substrate and depths. The existing area surrounding the project area
consists of open water, marinas, and residential/institutional development.
ENDANGERED SPECIES: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has determined the
proposal may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the endangered West Indian manatee
(Trichechus manatus) and would not result in an adverse impact to its designated critical habitat.
The Corps has received U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurrence with this determination
pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
The Corps has determined the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect
the endangered smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata), or the endangered/threatened swimming
sea turtles (Chelonia mydas, Eretmochelys imbricata, Lepidochelys kempii, Dermochelys
coriacea, Caretta caretta). The project would not result in an adverse modification of any
designated critical habitat for these species. The Corps will request National Marine Fisheries
Service’s concurrence with this determination pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act.
The Corps has determined the proposal would have no effect on any other listed threatened or
endangered species or designated critical habitat.
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT (EFH): This notice initiates consultation with the National
Marine Fisheries Service on EFH as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act 1996. The proposal would impact approximately 42 acres of unvegetated
muck/sand substrate utilized by various life stages of penaeid shrimp complex, reef fish, stone
crab, spiny lobster, migratory/pelagic fish, and snapper/grouper complex. Adverse impacts due
to construction would be temporary and the project would result in a net increase in seagrass
habitat. Our initial determination is that the proposed action would not have a substantial
adverse impact on EFH or Federally managed fisheries in the South Atlantic Region. Our final
determination relative to project impacts and the need for mitigation measures is subject to
review by and coordination with the National Marine Fisheries Service.
NOTE: This public notice is being issued based on information furnished by the applicant. This
information has not been verified or evaluated to ensure compliance with laws and regulations
governing the regulatory program. The jurisdictional line has been verified by Corps personnel.
AUTHORIZATION FROM OTHER AGENCIES: Water Quality Certification may be required
from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and/or one of the state Water
Management Districts.
Comments regarding the application should be submitted in writing to the District Engineer at
the above address within 30 days from the date of this notice.
If you have any questions concerning this application, you may contact Eric Reusch at the
letterhead address, by electronic mail at Eric.G.Reusch@usace.army.mil, or by telephone at 561-
472-3529.
The decision whether to issue or deny this permit application will be based on the information
received from this public notice and the evaluation of the probable impact to the aquatic
environment. This is based on an analysis of the applicant’s avoidance and minimization efforts
for the project, as well as the compensatory mitigation proposed.

Unsurprisingly, the proposal by the city of Marathon to outlaw anchorage on portions of Boot Key Harbor where formerly this practice was welcome, has elicited an outpouring of reaction from the cruising community. The volume of messages has grown so large, that we have moved all these many welcome notes here, and linked this page from the original posting concerning this topic, at:

http://cruisersnet.net/?p=80539

This appears to be a very informative and balanced article. Well done to Charmaine, please keep us up to date on this.
Phil Johnson

We spent five winters in Marathon on a mooring ball, met many great cruising friends and enjoyed our time there. However, last year we tired of the City Marina treating cruisers like naughty school children and scolding them on the morning radio net (I was one of the Net controllers one day per week). So this year we decided to try a winter elsewhere and are glad we did!
I wrote to the Chamber of Commerce to let them know that we won’t be back and that other cruisers we talk to are beginning to see Boot Key Harbor changing from a cruiser friendly place to being hostile to the year-round mooring residents and those who prefer to anchor.
Anchoring out in the open roadstead south and west of Boot Key in the winter season is at best uncomfortable and sometimes downright dangerous! Taking a chance on arriving to find the moorings all taken and being told I couldn’t anchor in Sister Creek or in the harbor until a mooring was available is NOT something that I would recommend to anyone.
Boot Key Harbor and the City Marina have lost us and others we know as customers already. Unless they change their current position on rates and anchoring restrictions they will lose more customers.
Larry Sherman
s/v Enchantress

Sad to see all of the changes going on down there. I used to skydive once a year down in Marathon and always wanted to stay a few months to revisit when I started in cruising.But for that price I can just dodge up to the Port Charlotte area and pay for a nice slip with shore power, good wifi, and all the perks and not have to worry I’d be waiting exposed in a harbor while room freed up. I stayed at Gasparilla last year and it was secure, extremely friendly and had a good work yard with reasonable prices.
From that area I have Cayo, sailing on Charlotte is divine, Ft Myers mooring and a quick motor across the Okeechobee waterway gives me access to the Bahamas.
I got into cruising to get away from the hassles of life, not add to them.
Mark

I am not always opposed to change, changes can be made in a good way. We did anchor in Boot Key for a week or so waiting on a mooring ball to come available. I do think that maybe the council could consider temporary anchoring in all areas suitable when the mooring fields and set up anchorage is full, so as not to drive away cruisers, while this would still prohibit, derelict boats from permanent anchorage in these other areas. But at the same time, the derelict boats are just going to occupy the set up anchoring field and fill it so that cruisers won’t be able to anchor there when they arrive. So I do understand the councils problem. I do hope that maybe they will consider some way of making it work for everyone. Marathon was one of our favorite spots to visit, and we did spend time at Marina’s there as well, but even those are full much of the time. Best wishes with the efforts here, we are not cruisers who wish to boy-cott, because of change or rules, but at some point, things do become inconvenient, and when that happens, it does slow the flow. Us included.
Capt. Clay

There are existing ordinances to rid Boot Key Harbor of Derelict boats however the are NOT ENFORCED! Not by the City of Marathon nor the Florida Maine Patrol nor by the Monroe County Sheriffs Office which has a patrol boat @ Marathon Municipal Marina. Any excuse by the town,county or state is only an admission of there own violation of there own existing laws.
Our Lord’s Blessing to All
Ed & Bonnie Spomer
S/V Almost Heaven

Thanks, Charmaine and SSECN for bringing this situation to our attention.
We last visited Marathon two years ago. When had a reservation at Sombrero Dockside marina, but when we arrived the boat in our slip had not left and we were forced to anchor out overnight in Sisters Creek until they left the next day. I’m not sure what I would have done if I had not been able to anchor in Sisters Creek. The mooring field was full. The marinas that could accomodate a boat of our size were all full, and it was too late in the day to head over to Newfound Harbor.
The city does, of course, have the right to charge whatever it chooses for slips, mooring balls and dinghy dockage. However, the isssue of anchoring and safety are another matter. Derelict boats can be handled with current regulations, so I still do not understand why the city would choose legislation to restrict anchoring that could cause a negative reaction from the crusing community and be potentially dangerous.
We had planned to cruise back to the keys next winter, but we will definitely be bypassing Marathon if this legislation is enacted.
Bill Root

I have been making ready to stay over in Marathon for the last two years, this new news is making me re think my plans. I am retired and on a budget. Being on the hook in more open water is not on my to do list. Maybe the islands are better. Regretfully,
Nick Leva

I have to say the current state of Marathon was shocking. Just took a nice group of sailing students on a week long cruise. Never had the time to anchor in Book Key Harbor before so I decided what a great time to visit and show some West Coast sailors how great the Keys were. Again, not having spent any time in Marathon, I always thought of it as one of the few real cruising friendly areas down here in the Keys, a little taste of what I had in the Carolinas and Chesapeake.
Big mistake. I was embarrassed for my clients. Not only were we harassed in the anchorage by some very derelict live aboard boaters, yelling and screaming while pounding down beers and smoking at 9am, but walking the streets was a big wake up call. I’ll never take any clients to Boot Key Harbor again. So sad to have to make that statement.
Being a sailing instructor, I am trying to show cruisers in training what our lifestyle is all about. How to get safely from destination to destination and how wonderful it is to pull into that funky, cool little down, dinghy up and have great time, or sit in the cockpit and watch the sun go down.
Marathon does need a massive clean up, as true of many Key’s anchorage areas. Real cruisers are getting a bad rap from all the derelict boaters. But penalizing the active cruising community is not the way to accomplish this.
Marathon I don’t want to give up on you but you have a long way to go.
Capt. Edana Long

We were just down at Marathon for a month in an RV, with a boat, and visited the harbor almost daily. There was always a 2 to 3 day waiting list for moorings. The parking places were nearly full. I can see the point of showering on shore, if the water is $.05 a gallon!

We did notice that boats seemed to be having difficulty getting anchors to hold–and it may well be the type of anchor –mostly Bruce type or Claw seemed to be having problems.
Bob Austin

My husband and I have visited Marathon the past 2 seasons, anchoring out for a few days before taking a mooring. We’ve had very positive experiences with both the local boaters and the cruisers and the sense of community we find here is what draws us back. Yes, there are those who live a different lifestyle than what we choose, but there is room here for us to coexist, and the general atmosphere of the community is one of support and friendship.
Cathy Dieter s/v Orion JR

The problem with derelict vessels can be resolved by having an Insurance requirement requiring Liability, wreck removal and polution coverage. The Certificate of Insurance could be required by the harbormaster within 48 hours after anchoring or the harbormaster could call the police to evict and or ticket the owner. Derelicks are uninsurable because a condition survey is always required prior to coverage being bound. This could be a requirement much like the DMV. Cruisers / snow birds are always aboard seaworthy boats because they need to be to cruise. Boat yards require coverage to haul so why can’t the state, municapality and local harbormasters require coverage as part of the FL registration?
Bill Owens

Localities can’t require equipment or insurance above and beyond what is state mandated–that is a state-level requirement, just as car equipment requirements are set at the state level. If you start allowing localities to impose their own rules you would be constantly having to go through hoops every time you moved on to the next harbor, making cruising impossible. However, there are numerous laws already on the books that can deal with supposed “derelict” boats, which is really more about derelict boat owners who have problems above and beyond any maritime rules. However, these laws are just not enforced: proper registration, proper sanitation equipment, proper boat equipment, anchor lights, etc. In the case of Marathon, sure there are some boats there that are marginal, but the real reason the city is making anchoring difficult and expensive is they have a shortfall in the marina and mooring budget and they want to force more people to pay for the moorings. It is about $$, and don’t let them throw a smoke screen over it by declaring it is about derelict boats, which they refuse to do anything about using the laws already on the books.
And, I should have added above that they may be solving the derelict boat problem by eliminating legal anchoring areas, but they are going to do it by chasing away legitimate tourist boaters who prefer to anchor out. They will lose money in the long run with that attitude. Cruisers don’t want to visit places that are a hassle–they go cruising to get away from all that.
John Kettlewell

I have gone to Marathon many times over the last 15 years and enjoyed the friendly people and the area. I got to know many locals who treated me as if I were one of them. I sure hope that the fees for the mooring field don’t price me out of one of my favorite place.
Richard Bruning

Claiborne,
After reading the entire article, if possible, I would like to add that the three boats we were visiting with were 25 foot C Dorys, who anchored in Sister Creek until a mooring became available. It would have been very uncomfortable and on some days dangerous for this size of boat or smaller, to have anchored in the open roadstead to the West and South of Vaca Key. One night it blew up to over 30 knots–another night it was 50 knots in gusts.
Bob Austin

January 27th 2012

St. Petersburg: Nothing SAINTLY About It!
by Charmaine Smith Ladd

Somebody grab the Brasso: St. Petersburg’s halo is badly tarnished! For a city who sports the motto of “Always In Season,” with their proposed anchoring ordinances it appears St. Pete is attempting to replace their friendly olive branch with a thorny Russian Olive branch and advertise instead: “Always Off Season” to cruisers.

Essentially, what St. Petersburg’s ordinances propose is no access to downtown St. Pete for cruisers visiting the area. Is this the way to treat tourists? Imagine arriving by car and seeing a sign at the City Limits stating “Non-residents limited to a 72-hour stay.” Is this the Wild Wild West of old, “Hey stranger, we don’t like your kind ’round here. You best be out of town by sundown.” Am I in a time warp? Is this the Twilight Zone or is it the 21st century and someone has laced Florida’s oranges! It is all nothing short of madness.

To ban liveaboards from anchoring is totally contrary to FL Statute, in fact it is blatant discrimination. There is absolutely no justification for it. It is as if to say anyone who lives aboard their vessel and does not navigate the waters is guilty of something and considered an undesirable. This rationale will ultimately lead to Florida returning to the “No Liveaboards Allowed” status they had years ago in marinas. Most marinas allowed it, but on the down low so as not to get a rise of their neighborhood watch monitors. Many of us have worked very hard to quell the fears marinas had of those who chose to live aboard. If we allow this to be done to liveaboards, then cruisers will be next. Of this, I have no doubt. These municipalities want you either in the cookie cutter mode of society or you’re out. This is the 21st Century, but apparently Florida does not know times have changed. Prejudice is prejudice–be it against color, creed, or aimed at those who live aboard a vessel rather than a house on land. Ignorance always fuels such prejudice. This situation is no different in that regard.

What St. Petersburg will have to do is define when a cruiser becomes a liveaboard. This is the danger of their ordinance. Many cities already have tried to do this. Most recently in Stuart, the city in Florida that in 2008 had an ordinance stating after 72 hours at anchor a boat becomes a “Liveaboard.” It was immediately challenged and removed. This is the can of worms that St. Petersburg is opening again. It is an enormous problem. Derelict vessels has become “Derelict People.” Some cannot see through their greed and fear that either the derelicts will rob their house when they are gone, or that a boat on the water has a better view than they do! Either way, it’s ridiculous.

The Pilot Program is perpetuating myths that allow those who only really want a clear view of the horizon a manner by which to kill the dream of living aboard. There are no other reasons as the excuses drummed up simply do not wash. We all know that millions of gallons of raw sewage gets dumped into Florida waters quite routinely. The septic systems for the homes that built where there used to be swamp (basically all of Florida) are not adequate and constantly seep or spill over into Florida’s waters. Sewage from boaters is nothing in comparison. Even the Department of Environmental Protection does not blame boaters for the pollution of Florida’s waters: they know better. We have orange groves that use fertilizers that pollute our waters, golf courses don’t stay green naturally. These pollutants all come from LAND. Should we as boaters begin to demand golf courses and orange groves be banned and houses torn down because they are the largest contributors to pollution in Florida waters? That would be absurd, would it not?

Now that the cat is out of the bag on the ridiculousness of using boater sewage as a health issue that should be regulated, the powers that be are no longer using it. Yet it still remains on the Pilot Program agenda as an objective with which to be dealt. That is irresponsible, in my opinion, as it is misleading and arguably an untruth. So that takes us to the derelict and abandoned boat problem.

If only these areas would deal with that very real problem: derelict vessels. Derelict vessels most often are those that have been stored for years. You know the “fixer uppers” that people can’t seem not to buy but purchase and let it for years. At some point, someone takes it off their hands for a few dollars and it continues to sit. Out of sight, out of mind. It sits there and rots. Most of these stored vessels are owned by those who live on land.

There is a lot of ignorance about the lifestyle of those who live aboard be they cruisers or not. As if those who do are an alien species to be eradicated. The freedom to choose one’s lifestyle is there for everyone. Sure, there are bad apples in every walk of life…as we all know, there are millions more on land than on the water, yet severely restricting or ridding waters of inhabited boats will make the world a better place? It is laughable.

Rather than resort to blanket ordinances that infringe on the inalienable rights of others in their pursuit of happiness, those who complain about boaters need to realize they do not own the water. Their ordinances are Constitutionally unsound because there are laws in place to handle those who break the law — be they on the water or on land. USE THEM. But give someone an inch and they’ll take a nautical mile! The adage doesn’t quite go that way, but tailoring it to make a point here certainly fits.

To the powers that be in St. Petersburg, you are not listening to your public. It is evident to me that the waters of St. Petersburg are being held as if owned by those who live in homes there. If we allow such reasoning to go unchecked, waters held in the public trust for use by the public will be gated and available only to those in similar tax brackets — just as their land communities are. It will never end.

The Pilot Program, in my opinion, has done far more harm than good for the State of Florida. We are throwing the baby out with the bath! The remainder of the States are laughing at us…one of the oldest Ports in the U.S. should know by now how to get it right and be an example of how things can work amicably between sailors and landlubbers. But noooo. The world must think mainland Florida has lost its mind. You can’t kill sailing and living aboard, people…remember, it’s how you got here!

Tourists are tourists, commerce is commerce, and effectively your proposed ordinances are saying “We don’t want you here.” If you say that to citizens of the US, what do you say to foreign visitors? It’s shameful. President Obama is pushing hard to tout America as THE place for tourism. I don’t think St. Petersburg got the memo. So suck it up and get out the Brasso. Restore the saintly shine that halo of St. Petersburg and let it be the Port of the PUBLIC. Shake out your Unwelcome Mat and replace it with a Welcome Mat! Live up to your motto: “Always In Season.”

Charmaine Smith Ladd, SSECN Special Correspondent & Representative
Executive Director, Mariner’s BARR (Boaters’ Anchoring Rights & Responsibilities)
csmithladd@marinersbarr.org

Great report! The sad thing is that the laws they propose don’t solve the problems they say they are worried about. Derelict boats aren’t anchored in downtown St. Pete, and in any case existing laws can and should be used to take care of them. All these laws do is impact legitimate transient boaters who wish to visit St. Pete. I have read elsewhere that occupancy in their mooring field is very low–this is also a push to try to force people to pay for those moorings.
John Kettlewell

Captain Burnham’s message below is somewhat cryptic, but if I read it rightly, the city of St. Petersburg, Florida is attempting to limit anchorage in their corporate waters to 3-days in a particular spot, and 9 days total, within any 30 day period. As such, these are possibly the most Draconian proposals put forward by any of the five municipalities/counties which are part of the Florida Pilot Mooring Field Program. Fortunately, there is still a LOT of public comment to be registered, and the FWC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission) must agree to all restrictions before they can be passed and enforced. As St. Augustine learned last fall, the FWC is very reluctant to approve such short term anchorage limits.
Notice that Captain Burhnham points out that the real bugaboo in all of this is derelict vessels. Can I say it just one more time. This IS a real problem in Florida, BUT this problem can be solved by enforcement of EXISTING marina salvage laws and MSD regulations. Why try and limit anchorage for everyone, when the very real derelict problem is being caused by a tiny minority of boat owners?

I attended the meeting and received a draft copy of the proposed changes to the City Code.
As written, it allows me to do things on a three day weekend that would really annoy most boaters and marina operators. It allows me to anchor within 200 feet of any marina or boat ramp and stay there for 3 days as long as I am not an obstruction or a “hazard to navigation”. It would seem to me that any anchored vessel is an obstruction to be avoided…
Within any 30 day period, I can anchor consecutively in the Central Yacht Basin, the South Yacht Basin, or Bayboro Harbor for 3 days each, allowing me a 9 day stay without mooring fees. There is no beginning time or ending time for my 72 hour stay at each location so if I drop anchor in the Basin after sundown and no one notices until the next morning, the first night is not counted in the 72 hours?
Last night’s public forum was a good meeting for the boating public to ask the city to clearify the intent of their proposal.
What St. Petersburg apparently wants is to prevent vessels from being abandoned by the few irresponsible owners who neglect vessel maintenance. As drafted, their proposal does not address this except to state that “hazardous” vessels are prohibited from anchoring in the waterways of St. Petersburg; which is not in agreement with Florida State Law in regards to navigation. “Hazardous” vessels means a vessel in danger of becoming a derelict for various subjective reasons listed.
If the proposal begins constructive dialog between the boating public who visit St. Pete and the city managers, then last night was a successful beginning.
David Burnham

After reading the above, we asked Captain Charmaine Smith Ladd, founder of BARR (Boater’s Anchoring Responsibility and Rights), to comment on the proposed St. Pete regulations. Her response appears below.

January 26th, 2012
by Charmaine Smith Ladd
csmithladd@marinersbarr.org
For your perusal and comments, the proposed ordinance draft for St. Petersburg:
http://marinersbarr.org/fpp/docs/st_petersburg/draftanchorrdinance-2012-01-26.pdf
Things to note: LIVEABOARDS will not be able to anchor anywhere within the City Limits of St. Petersburg, they MUST either take a mooring or a marina slip; NON-LIVEABOARDS (cruisers) effectively will be under a 72-hour limit for anchoring. The ordinance also reads: “No vessel shall anchor in the Port of St. Petersburg.” Very broad and very disturbing.

St. Petersburg – Scheduled Public Meetings:
February 16th at 3:00 pm – St. Petersburg City Council Meeting, 1st Reading
March 1st at 8:30 am – St. Petersburg City Council Meeting, Public Hearing
Location: Karen A. Steidinger Auditorium Fish & Wildlife Research Institute
100 Eighth Avenue SE, St. Petersburg, FL 33701

Click Here To Read an Imporant and Much Lengthier Article by Captain Charmaine Smith Ladd Concerning the Developing St. Petersburg Anchoring Issue

The postings so far had me very concerned until I carefully read the proposed ordinance. While it prohibits anchoring of liveaboard vessels anywhere in the city limits, the 72 hour rule only applies within 200 feet of marinas and boat ramps and in the three basins and the Port basin downtown. It does not apply for cruisers (non-liveaboard vessels) in other anchorages in St. Pete like Coffeepot, the two bayous, or Maximo Point (a favorite of ours). The 72 hour limit does not apply to the entire peninsula or city limits!
If it passes approval by the FWC with the 72 hour limit intact, we will simply NEVER visit or spend our money in downtown St. Pete again. We will vote with our anchor and go to more cruiser friendly places! In it’s effort to deal with abandoned and derelict boats the City of St. Petersburg is telling cruisers that they are not welcome except for a short stay. They don’t treat tourists that way who arrive by car or plane instead of by boat.
There is no “safe harbor” provision in the proposed ordinance so the police can kick you out into a storm if they want. My guess is that the FWC will require a “safe harbor” provision be added.
Larry Sherman

And now, more from Captain Burnham on this issue. Many, many thanks for his fine reporting of this critical cruising issue:

My first comments were truly cryptic as they closely follow the draft proposal from the St. Petersburg City Code which in itself I found it to be cryptic in its intent.
The stated intent of Article 6 in Chapter 7 is to encourage the use of the new mooring field in the North Basin. Presently, only one of the 13 new moorings is occupied. Six boats are anchored behind the seawall in the South Basin, and 5 sailboats are at anchor in the Bayboro Basin south of the Port of St Petersburg.
These 11 sailboats are all in good condition and within their rights under Florida State Laws of Navigation even though they appear to be within the “City Limits”. I have not found how far the St. Petersburg city limits extend into Tampa Bay, but they do go from the Clearwater/St. Petersburg Airport all the way around the Pinellas peninsula to Boca Ciega Bay with the exception of the City of Gulfport!
If all 11 sailboats moved to the mooring field, their daily rate would be 14 dollars if under 41 feet in length and 17 dollars if 41 feet to 60 feet. This is significantly less than the average 80 dollar daily rate for a 40 foot vessel at the Transient Dock. If any of these cruisers rent a vehicle while on a mooring and wish to park it at the marina overnight, the daily fee is $2.80.
During the peak winter season, 2 months is the maximum length of stay on the moorings but you can return after 15 days if there is a mooring still available.
The proposed 72 hour time limit for anchoring in any Basin in the city limits will only serve to push the cruisers over to Gulfport which does not yet have an established mooring field in Boca Ciega Bay or other more curtious anchorages in the Tampa Bay area.
The FWC officers are more concerned with abandoned boats, not the well kept cruiser, and preventing boats from becoming derelicts with the associated hazards.
The term “live aboard” is used differently in the boating community and causes confusion. Until the boaters accept the term “live aboard” to mean a vessel that is NOT used for navigation (think boat house instead of houseboat) and has no means of propulsion, cruisers staying on their boats will be unsure of the proposed rule’s intent.
The Port of St. Petersburg, south of the city airport, where all the U.S. Coast Guard and commercial ships are berthed is not a suitable anchorage for smaller cruising boats.
David Burnham

While I am not familiar with the local geography of the S. Pete waters I am a cruiser-resident of nearby Plant City, Hillsborough County, Florida, and have occupied and cruised continuously aboard my vessel for 8-1/2 years. Our vessel is currently in a mooring field in San Blas Islands of Panama.
Like the City of St. Pete, we “full-time” cruisers are also unhappy with derelict vessels. They are a hazard to navigation, safety and the environment. In inclement weather conditions they can, and have, drifted loose from their “anchored” position and damaged other vessels. If not maintained in a reasonably clean and preserved condition, they negatively impact our enjoyment of the waters in which we choose to anchor.
I believe there should be a distinction between 1) derelict vessels, 2) vessels that are “stored” on the water, i.e., not capable of safe navigation, and 3) vessels that are anchored/moored and capable of safe navigation. And I would argue that an unoccupied vessel is not capable of safe navigation.
Boat ownership is a responsibility that includes being a safe and considerate “neighbor” to nearby vessels and property, and to their owners and occupants.
There is no reason to penalize a responsible owner-occupant of a cruising vessel who chooses to anchor safely for extended periods in an urban waterway.
On the other hand, I also believe that nearby vessels and property should have protection from “derelict” and/or “stored” vessels when they present hazards to their neighbors. The longer a non-navigable, or unoccupied vessel remains at anchor, the greater hazard it represents. Storms create a great danger that such vessels will come loose and damage other vessels or property. Ill-kept, non-maintained vessels are a public hazard and nuisance. I realize that “nuisance” is hard to define, but city codes have addressed this with respect to real estate, so there is precedent in regulating such matters in a community-acceptable manner.
I think the City of St. Petersburg should consider the above discussion in its regulation and re-write the proposed ordinance to allow for responsible, long-term anchoring for occupied vessels.
Carl Gaines

I have spent many enjoyable hours anchored in St. Pete’s Vinoy Basin, the North Harbour, when I first started cruising south. While there, I met cruisers from as far north as Nova Scotia and as far south as the eastern Caribbean. Not a derelict vessel in sight. Never a problem.
Now, because the city would not enforce laws available to it to deal with a half dozen near-derelict vessels in the Basin, I’m forbidden to ever again anchor there, because they’ve put moorings in?
Let me be blunt, because I’m fed up with this crap from the state of FL.
I’ve just spent three very pleasant weeks in Brunswick Ga., 35 miles north of Florida. It was nice to feel welcomed.
When I leave here tomorrow, the goal is to remain offshore as much and as long as I can, until I can get to the Bahamas, and to hell with Florida.
All of it, every bit of it. I don’t need their attitude towards me, my boat and my needs, because Florida officials cannot deal with their drunks and druggies living on derelict boats in a manner responsible to those who would visit, spend money and respect their state.
Since I singlehand, I’ll have to come inshore to rest. But I intend to buy enough fuel and food here in Brunswick, GA so that I don’t spend a cent in their damned state.
Wally Moran

Well, I don’t visit cities where boaters are not welcome, nor do my MANY boating friends – AND WE DON”T SPEND OUR CONSIDERABLE MONEY THERE! WAKE UP MERCHANTS!!!!!
August Trometer

The money spent by anchored cruisers is quite small in the grand scheme of things. And from the ordinance writers perspective, if you won’t even spend money on a mooring ball, let alone dockage, how much money will you spend ashore? Comparing cruisers to motorists doesn’t work, you can’t camp out in the rest stops or along the side of the road. You’ll need a better angle.
Livaboards are not the issue in St. Petes either. The Harborage marina openly welcomes livaboards, they have the city permits to allow it and have many amenities geared specifically to livaboards.
I think it is the derelict boats that is the heart of the matter. Can Cruisers Net or other organizations come up with a plan & assistance with facilitating the removal of the derelicts.
The other issue is “bum boats”. Those boats that are not ‘derelicts’ but do not look good at all. They are eyesores that do no good for the cause. Many (but not all) would love to see a beautiful boat at anchor in the harbor, but seeing an eyesore exacerbates this sort of issue. Hard to say what could be done. Personal responsibility can’t be legislated but it is contributing to the problem. The solution…kick em all out.
Ted

Editor’s Response – Ted, if you will look at my earlier editorial, “Whence Come the Anchorage Regulations” at http://cruisersnet.net/?p=4958, you will see that we have come up with a scheme to get rid of derelicts, and it requires no new laws, nor does it harass the cruising community. Of course, many others have noted these same solutions. It’s not just the SSECN!

As a resident of St Petersburg and its environs (now Treasure Island) since 1986, and before that at Stetson Law School in the late 50′s, I have always thought of our city as a boater friendly town, certainly a very prominent sailing city with a world renown yacht club. I applaud the decision to install moorings in the Vinoy Basin where the holding has always been poor, but to link that to a limit on anchoring, whether deemed a reasonable period or not, is unreasonable – clearly the elephant getting its nose in the door as a precursor for more regulations. Address the problem of derelict boats, but keep St Pete boater friendly.
Charles (Chuck) Waygood

A 72-hour limit in a 30-day period is ridiculously short. It would mean that someone couldn’t visit two weekends in a row, unless they anchored in one of the other locations. It would mean someone couldn’t anchor there during the entire boat show. A prohibition of “liveaboards” anchoring at all is simple prejudice, and I suspect would instantly be ruled against in a court of law. Even though the Florida definition of “liveaboard” is narrow that doesn’t mean they suddenly become second-class citizens. This ordinance severely impacts legitimate transient cruisers, will do little to deal with the truly hazardous boats, and painst St. Petersburg as an unfriendly place that does not want boaters to visit.
John Kettlewell

I have been preaching from my pulpit for years now, that the fly in the proverbial ointment when it comes to the struggle for Florida Anchoring Rights, is the very real problem of abandoned vessels (“derelicts”) and what I term, “live aboard hulks” (vessels that are being lived on, but which will probably never move again)! These problem vessels are the excuse that the anti-anchoring forces keep throwing in the mix every time the debate rages about Florida anchoring.
Many others here on the Cruisers’ Net, and on many other forums, have opined that the problem of derelicts and “live aboard hulks” can be solved with existing Florida laws and regulations, thereby not penalizing all other boat owners.
Now, our good friend, and true friend of the cruising community, Captain Jay Bliss, member of the St. Augustine Port Commission, has provided us with the means below to research derelict vessels in Florida, on a county by county basis. Thank you Captain Bay for providing this wonderful resource!

Hi Claiborne,
Here’s the pertinent website for the identification, procedures, for Derelict, Abandoned,and AtRisk vessels in FL

http://myfwc.com/media/407584/GeneralOrder21.pdf

For those that reside in any particular patch in FL, they can get an idea of the problem boats in a particular county by going to this site

https://public.myfwc.com/LE/ArrestNet/DerelictVessel/VesselMap.aspx

At that url, examine the Legend (rh side), then clik “Queries”. The page there allows you to type in a FL county. Do that, and press Search.
Your county will show problem boats as colored circles. Clik on a given circle, and you’ll see further details about that boat. Stats are in the lower left side of the page. You can compare counties, etc. You can learn dates boats were identified, etc. It’s a valuable tool to see how we progress in ridding our Public waters of problem boats.
Jay Bliss

It was almost a year ago that we posted an article here on the Cruisers’ Net about the possibility of boaters being denied the right to anchor in popular Boca Grand Bayou (hard by the shores of Gasparilla Island), behind the Pink Elephant Restaurant, due to possible private ownership of the bottomland in question (see http://cruisersnet.net/?p=46788). A slightly later article provided more details (see http://cruisersnet.net/?p=51002).

Then, over this past Thanksgiving holiday, yours truly and the first-mate, first-mate spent a wonderful week in Boca Grande. I personally observed only two vessels lying at anchor in the Boca Grande Bayou Basin anchorage, where formerly there were many more. In asking around, I began to hear rumors that vessels anchored on the northern end of the basin were being asked to move along, as the bottomland was claimed to be private property.
Last week, a fellow cruiser sent me a “Letter to the Editor” which appeared in Gasparilla Island’s superb weekly newspaper, the “Boca Beacon.” Here is a link to that article:

http://www.bocabeacon.com/news/featured-news/4202-the-question-of-the-day-who-can-anchor-in-the-bayou

Most importantly, I learned in a telephone conversation last week that the “Boca Beacon” editor, Ms. Marcy Shortuse, was working on an in-depth article concerning this very complex issue. I shared my insights on this subject, and sent Ms. Shortuse a link to my “Whence Come The Anchorage Regulations” editorial (http://cruisersnet.net/?p=4958). Last Friday, 12/16/11, Marcy’s article was published, and it is linked below. Her excellent, in-depth study of this situation is a must-read for anyone interested in the Florida anchoring issue:

http://www.bocabeacon.com/news/featured-news/4208-bottomland-on-the-bayou-a-rather-sticky-situation

We solicit additional input on the issue of anchoring in Boca Grande Bayou from the cruising community, particularly those mariners who frequent the waters of Pine Island Sound and Charlotte Harbor. Please follow the “Click Here to Submit Cruising News” link on the upper right of this page, and share your point of view.

I deleted Boca Grande from my website, too risky to suggest it as an anchorage.
Mary Dixon

Very simply and to the point the U.S. Supreme Court has already spoken on this issue.
“1.U.S. Supreme Court, Lewis Blue Point Oyster Cultivation Co. v. Briggs 229 US 82
When overturning a lower court case the U.S. Supreme Court said: “If the public right of navigation is the dominant right, and if, as must be the case, the title of the owner of the bed of navigable waters hold subject absolutely to the public right of navigation, this dominant right must include the right to the use of the bed of water for every purpose which is in aid of navigation.””
Robert Driscoll

Driscoll nails it. It doesn’t matter whether or not the bottom is privately owned, there is still a right of navigation that trumps that. Anchoring is considered to be a normal part of navigation. Take a look at St. Augustine where the city has claimed they own the bottom land since forever, yet they were unable to prevent anchoring in those waters until they built mooring fields over most of the anchoring area.
John Kettlewell

Earlier, we posted a letter copy here on the Cruisers’ Net of a missive sent from Captain Arthur Richard, to the Sarasota County Sheriff’s department, concerning a less than happy meeting with a deputy, while anchored on the waters of Blackburn Bay (see http://cruisersnet.net/?p=76631). As you will see, Captain Richard’s note got a favorable reply, and it undoubtedly clued everyone in the sheriff’s department to the latest Florida state laws concerning anchorage.

Reference my earlier report on Anchoring in Blackburn Bay, Sarasota County, FL. It seems that our anchoring rights in Sarasota County, FL are in accordance with
Florida law. Apparently I experienced and ill-informed, overzealous part time deputy Sheriff.
I received the following response from the Sarasota County, FL Sheriff’s Office”

From: Richard Mottola
Subject: RE:Anchoring in Blackburn Bay
Date: December 19, 2011 10:31:25 AM EST
Mr. Richard,
This is Captain Mottola from the Sheriff’s Office. The Marine Unit is one of the
areas under my command (Special Operations Bureau). I checked with our two
full-time boat captains and neither recalls speaking with you about this. It
could very well be that you spoke with one of our part-time captains. I could
most likely determine this if you could provide a date and time of the contact.
Despite that, it appears you are correct in your interpretation of the statutes
cited.
I can only surmise that the captain you spoke with, for some reason, believed
you were actually living aboard your vessel and therefore assumed that county
ordinance 130-42 may have applied. Otherwise, it would not be applicable.
County Statute 130-42. Mooring of Vessels used as dwelling units:

http://library.municode.com/HTML/11511/level3/CD_ORD_SARASOTA_CO_FLORIDA_CH130WA

_ARTIIIMOVE.html#CD_ORD_SARASOTA_CO_FLORIDA_CH130WA_ARTIIIMOVE_S130-42MOVEUSDWUN
Please feel free to contact me if you have further questions (861-4049) – Or you
may contact Captain Shipp with the Florida Wildlife Commission (Southwest Region
863-648-3203)
Thank you.

Arthur Richard

And, with the comments below received after publication of the above article, the plot thickens CONSIDERABLY! Looks like the Sarasota Sheriff’s Department is using their own version of what constitutes a “live aboard vessel,” and, by the way, this definition is in contravention of Flroida state law!!!

Hello,
I would like to make a comment and pose a few questions pertaining to this important subject and more specifically my recent experiences anchoring on Blackburn Bay. I have been visited by the Sarasota county Sheriffs Dept. Marine unit on 3 occasions once when my vessel was not even actually present for apparently violating the 24 hour time limit for live aboard vessels, this most recent warning requires that I move my vessel by December 22 2011 or be subject to fines of 250 to 500 dollars a day. The Deputy asked me with issue of this most recent warning if I understood the reason why he had delivered it, to which I again replied something to the effect that, and to the very best of my knowledge and understanding of the applicable Florida State Statutes regarding anchoring outside of approved mooring fields and the definition of a live aboard vessel, that I have actually never been in violation of any of these law’s. He became visibly agitated and spoke to me as if I were an insubordinate child indicating that it had absolutely nothing to do with the Florida State statutes, I thanked him and said goodbye, I am very thankful that he left. My sailboat is in fact anchored outside of any mooring field and is a fully navigable vessel with all required safety gear. Can anyone comment on the enforceability of these muni-codes in light of the Florida State Statutes regarding anchoring?
Thanks!!
Cap’n Ron

The county code referenced, strictly interpreted, is favorable to people who live in houses and cruise for extended vacations. For those of us for whom our boat is our home, the code invites us to leave in 48 hours.
Nice of the Sheriff to be civil, though.
Chris

Below you will find more from Captain Richard, with his reply to the Sheriff’s department, and their subsequent message to him:

Captain Mottola,
Thank your for your response to my inquiry. A Sarasota Sheriff boat visit to my vessel in Blackburn Bay occured on the afternoon of November 30, 2011. The Sheriff’s boat remained at least 10 yards from my vessel, and I was not boarded. The operator of the Sheriff’s boat did not give his name, nor request mine.
I am pleased to find that my anchoring in Blackburn Bay was not in violation of county ordinances. It would be beneficial to the boating community if all of your officers were made aware of this.
Thank you,
Arthur M. Richard

From Captain Mottola (Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office):
My pleasure, and yes we are ensuring that ALL boat captains are made aware so that we do not have any further misunderstandings. Happy Holidays!

Chris: That is incorrect. It doesn’t matter whether or not you are living aboard for more than 48 hours. As long as you vessel is used for navigation and not solely as a residence you are not a liveaboard by Florida law, which trumps any local ordinances. Florida statute says this:
327.02 Definitions of terms used in this chapter and in chapter 328.—As used in this chapter and in chapter 328, unless the context clearly requires a different meaning, the term:
(17)“Live-aboard vessel” means:
a) Any vessel used solely as a residence and not for navigation;
b) Any vessel represented as a place of business, or a professional or other commercial enterprise; or
c) Any vessel for which a declaration of domicile has been filed pursuant to s. 222.17.
John Kettlewell

Captain Feiges is responding, in her message below, to a posting which appeared here on the Cruisers’ Net some time ago, about the victory in St. Augustine, when the city proposed ten day anchoring limit outside the mooring field, was shot down, and changed by the FWC to a thirty day limit.
Her point in this missive is very different, and very much worth the cruising community’s thoughtful consideration. Beverly speaks of a lack of anchoring “space” in Florida due to the proliferation of private moorings!

We are cruisers, plain and simple, and seldom stay in one spot for even a week. Even in Georgetown, in the Bahamas, where we may spend a month or more, we switch anchoring spots every so many days, depending on wind or activities ashore. Putting in mooring fields in very popular spots has the advantage of allowing many more boats to safely anchor, but it is also nice to have some room to anchor left over for those of us who may be too big for the spacing and holding power of the moorings, or too high off the water to easily pick up the mooring. Having permanently anchored boats in what is a limited area, even if they must move them every thirty days, does not help the honest to god cruiser who is passing through and wants a spot for a night or two. Even worse seems to be the unregulated dropping of private moorings everywhere it used to be possible to anchor.
I want the right to anchor, but there must be room to do it, and in allowing people to set their private moorings all over the place, (in Maine some people have as many as five in different harbors), or to stay anchored more than 5 days without a valid reason, then this room does not exist, and you just as effectively have cut off my right to anchor. We had this experience in St. Augustine this fall, almost impossible to anchor.
Beverly Feiges

Virtually all anchoring regulations being promoted by FWC are in violation of Florida Statute 370.04 in the wake of two Florida Supreme Court decision favoring boater’s (almost) unrestricted anchoring rights. There is nothing to be applauded here as FWC seems to be forging ahead unempeded with its greed and rise of power with little or no sound rationale or legal foundation.
Make your resistance known against this flagrant arrigance and disregard for formal constitutional decisions.
Bruce Bingham

Perhaps a private mooring can now be considered “the owner is anchored” and falls under the new regs ?? Interesting possibility…
Dennis McMurtry

I agree with Beverly. Sure, Florida’s mooring fields are busy in the winter, but for most of the year there are many vacant moorings that eliminate huge areas that used to be available for anchoring. St. Augustine has effectively eliminated all of the best anchoring areas by covering the harbor in moorings, most of which remain vacant most of the year. Same thing in Marathon. I have squeezed into the remaining anchorage there during the off season when half the moorings were empty.
John Kettlewell

Laws continue to be changed. FL Statute 370.04 I could not find. Overriding everything is our Federal Navigational Servitude and the Public Trust doctrine which provide, among other things, that navigation includes the right to anchor in all navigable waters.
FL Statute 327.44 states “no anchoring…in a manner which shall unreasonably or unnecessarily constitute a navigational hazard.”
Jay Bliss

Way to go Charmaine,
Thank You,
John Connon
s/v Donita

Thank You !!
Mike Cline

I am very happy to hear the news, we will be cruising Fla waters next fall and this news is very welcome indeed. After reading about the history and cruising opportunities in the St Augustine area its nice to be able to anchor off some of the time and 30 days is a good way to stop people dropping off their unwanted boats and causing more problems for honest cruisers.
Gary Holtze

I think I speak for many cruising captains. If St Augustine, or any other Florida town, makes it difficult for us to visit, we just simply won’t visit – and won’t spend any money there. We’re all rather tired of these restrictions and Florida police boats pulling us over, seeking an excuse to give us a $150 ticket to boost agency incomes. There are plenty of attractive waterway towns on the East Coast or Great Loop which welcome boaters at many free docks, realising that we attract tourism overall not the reverse. The best way to change Florida law is simply not to go there.
Arnold Parkinson

A big thank you to all those who fought hard to make this decision a reality. After serving this country for four years in the military to protect our freedom it is good to see that at least some of them are still there for us to enjoy.
James Angelf

Way to go! Let’s keep the pressure on these people until they leave us alone. it is good that the fwc is listening to us. 30 days isn’t too bad a deal, probably won’t be enforced unless the boater in question is a problem anyway.
Pete Shaw

Let have big round of applause for Captain Ladd. Thanks so much for being there for us Florida boaters. And congratulations!
Len Krauss,
Punta Gorda FL

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Charmaine Smith Ladd and Bonnie Basheim for their defense of cruiser’s rights and also to Cruisersnet for reporting the events.
Stewart Force

This is welcome of course, and congratulations to the cruisers everywhere who spoke up, but it’s small beans in the greater scheme that is happening here.
There is virtually no place left to anchor in St. Augustine anyway and the issue of the hold harmless clause negating boaters’ insurance wasn’t addressed. Boaters taking a mooring in St. Augustine – or anywhere in Florida for that matter – will not be insured should a mooring fail.
And there are much more onerous fights ahead of us – we’ve lost Manatee Pocket and Vinoy Basin in St. Petersburg as anchorages for example. Manatee Pocket might yet be salvageable if the FWC refuses to grant Stuart its 300 foot setoff, but Vinoy is gone, leaving no place convenient to downtown St. Pete to anchor.
This fight is far from over and the hardest part is yet to come.
Wally Moran

That is great news! Now, if everyone can try to send a comment to Stuart/Martin County before their next meeting on November 22 that would be very helpful. They are proposing no anchoring within 300 feet of shore in a large area, resulting in the total elimination of anchoring within Manatee Pocket, along with other onerous stuff.
John Kettlewell

What happens if a boat remains anchored for 30 days, but instead of leaving the area, ties to a dock (or slip or in the mooring-field) for a few days, then goes back on the hook? How many days must the boat be docked (or moored) before it can anchor for another 30 days, if it does not leave the area for a day?
Rick Ritchie

Thank you Charmaine & BOAT US, and the FWC for sticking up for the boaters!
Lupe Tucker

Hey Claiborne, great article, yes and a victory as well.
I do want to point out though, that the FWC approved 30 days of consecutive anchoring within a 45 day period. Does this not mean then that after 30 days of consecutive anchoring, one must leave for 15 days before returning?
Here is the news release we posted from the FWC on Jacksonville-Boating.com:
http://www.jacksonville-boating.com/magazine/boating_news/st_augustine_anchoring_ordinance_approved.shtml
Lupe Tucker

It’s a shame we have to go to such lenghts to keep our anchoring Rights. And they are rights, not privleges.
Inheritated from our forefathers!
Columbus anchored out without restrictions!!
Capt. Sterling

No question 30 days is better than 10 days but NOT a victory to celebrate! Two years from now the Florida League of Cities will say “Look, a 30 day anchoring restriction worked in St. Augustine”, now let every city impose a 30 day limit. NOT a good precedent to set!!
Now, I know Claiborne that you don’t approve of a boycott of the St. Augustine mooring field and businesses. But I still believe that is the only way to prove to the municipalities and business communities that treating cruisers and liveaboards poorly is bad for their economy. The city council members of St. Augustine did no cave in, this change from 10 days to 30 days was forced on them due to all of us pressuring the FWC. St. Augustine does not deserve cruisers supporting or paying for their mooring field or our money supporting their economy. I love stopping in St. Augustine as a tourist who arrives by boat or car, however, I still call on all of the seasonal boats heading south to bypass St. Augustine this year, leave their mooring field empty, anchor north of the city limits and the Villano Bridge, and call the city marina on the radio as you pass by heading south to let them know you are bypassing their fair city this year to spend your money in places that welcome cruising boats!
Henry Morgan

Grateful are we. Good News. (even tho we’re on the opposite side of the state of Fla. near Pensacola.)
Capt. M. L. Middleton

I also thank the 2 people who showed up for the St. Augustine meeting, but I am surprised there was not a greater number present. More towns and cities seem to think that their town will be better off by shooing away the cruisers. The only way that can stop is if cruisers make a point of appearing at these town meetings and making a stink about it. Why is Elizabeth City the only town that truly gets it…Cruisers are income for the city.
Howard Mitchell

Cruisers need to clean up their act. Holding tanks and pump out or head for the Wall St. group.
Roy

Congrats – I know it is not any easy fight.
I worked with Bonnie Basham in the Standing Watch vs Save the Manatee Club days. You couldn’t find a harder worker or better advocate for most any marine related cause. She’s the BEST.
Dick Smith

At approximately 1:00 pm today, 11/17/11, we received a telephone call from our very special Florida Keys Correspondent, Captain Charmaine Smith Ladd. Charmaine passed along a detailed report on today’s FWC meeting in Key Largo, Florida, which had just adjourned. This gathering was called specifically to consider St. Augustine’s request for a 10 day anchoring limit on their corporate waters, outside the city mooring field.
The only people to speak were Captain Charmaine, representing both BARR (Boater’s Anchoring Rights and Responsibilities) and the SSECN, Bonnie Bashem, representing Boat/US, and a representative from the city of St. Augustine.

According to Captain Charmaine, the St. Augustine representative, as you would expect, requested approval of the already much discussed 10-day anchoring limit for the waters outside of the city mooring field, while both Bonnie and Charmaine argued for a longer time limit. In fact, Charmaine asked for a 90-day limit.

The final result of the meeting was a DENIAL OF ST. AUGUSTINE’S REQUEST FOR A 10-DAY LIMIT, AND, INSTEAD, A THIRTY (30) DAY LIMIT WAS APPROVED. Vessels which want to anchor in St. Augustine waters for longer than 30 days must leave the corporate waters for at least 24-hours, and they can then return for another 30 days.

Now, I know some will say there should be no anchoring time limit at all, and I, for one, am not about to argue against that point of view. HOWEVER, IN LIGHT OF WHAT 24 HOURS AGO APPEARED TO BE A VIRTUAL CERTAINTY THAT ANCHORING IN ST. AUGUSTINE WAS ABOUT TO BE LIMITED TO 10 DAYS, THE DENIAL OF ST. AUGUSTINE’S REQUEST, AND THE IMPOSITION OF A 30 DAY TIME PERIOD INSTEAD, MUST BE SEEN AS A HUGE VICTORY FOR THE CRUISING COMMUNITY!

I might also add, that this decision shows me that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission IS keeping the needs of cruisers in mind, at least somewhat, as the process of approving local anchorage regulations for those communties (or counties) involved in the Pilot Mooring Field Program, goes forward!

The cruising community owes of a HUGE debt of thanks to Boat/US and Bonnie Bashem, Captain Charmaine and the hundreds and hundreds of cruisers who have bombarded the FWC and the St. Augustine City Government with e-mails.

However, the fight is most surely NOT over yet. There are still details to be worked out in St. Augustine, and there are four more Pilot Mooring Field Program sites for which anchorage regulations are yet to be approved.

So, the Salty Southeast Cruisers’ Net’s advice is STAY VIGILANT! In the meantime, though, let’s all bask in this victory, for at least a few moments!

As you might imagine, comments have been POURING in to the Salty Southeast Cruisers’ Net since the above article was published. So many, in fact, that we have had to establish a separate page so that everyone’s words can be displayed. Please click on the link below, and discover what your fellow cruisers have to say on this HOT topic:

http://cruisersnet.net/?p=74985

I have been contacted in the past month by a group whom are trying to stop the anchoring in Sarasota Bay. So heads up and look out for the next boom of protest to prohibiting boaters their rights.
Captain Kat Luchene

I agree that having to move your boat once every 30 days is a small inconvenience for boats cruising Florida waters compared to having to move it once every 10 days.
For sailboats it is even less of an inconvenience. I am thinking that the captain who is anchored waiting to get a part shipped for his engine so that he can continue cruising his powerboat is at a disadvantage unless he can get a friendly tow.
I too am fed up with abandoned boats sinking in our anchorages. Boats need to be stored on land and used on the water. Just as automobiles are not stored on public highways. http://www.gibsondrydock.com
My Cal 2-29 is on a private mooring in the St Johns River. It is moved at least twice a month but seldom for a 24 hour period. That is the one aspect of this that has me in disagreement. I am more concerned that an anchored boat is being used by its owner than how long it has to be moved from its anchorage. If the owner is aboard once a month, leaves the anchorage and returns, problems may be corrected before the boat becomes a hazard.
David Burnham

Thank you for this very important and needed update!
helmut g. kramer MD,MSc

St. Petersburg was selected some time ago as one of five sites for the Florida Pilot Mooring Field Program. And, it was previously announced their mooring field would be located in the North Yacht Basin/Vinoy Basin, which borders on the northern side of the huge St. Petersburg Municipal Marina (A SALTY SOUTHEAST CRUISERS’ NET SPONSOR) and just south of the Renaissance Vinoy Resort Marina.
It appears that construction is about to begin on this mooring field, and, consequently, the city of St. Petersburg is asking all the anchored vessel in the Vinoy Basin to leave.

Cruising News:
JUST GOT OFF THE PHONE WITH THE ST PETERSBURG HARBOR MASTER’S OFFICE. NO ANCHORING ALLOWED IN THE VENOY BASIN DUE TO “CONSTRUCTION”. AREA IS CLOSED TIL AFTER JAN 2012. MOORINGS ARE BEING PUT IN. QUESTION I WOULD LIKE TO ANCHOR NEARBY. ANY SUGGESTIONS???
THIS BASIN IS NOW CLOSED TO ANCHORING TIL JAN 2012 . REASON GIVEN BY MUN MARINA IS “CONSTRUCTION” NEW MOORINGS.
WHERE ELSE CAN WE GO?? ANY IDEAS?? I AM HEADING THERE ON DEC 1?? THE “VENOY BASIN IS GREAT . WE LOST ANOTHER ANCHORAGE.
CAPT. BILL O’MALLEY

SEMI OFFICIAL PRICE IS $25/DAY. LIKE EVERYTHING THIS IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BUT WAS WRITTEN UP FOR THE “PLAN”
Bill

Of course, one alternative is to dock at the St. Pete Muncipal Marina. This is one of the largest, and best managed city facilities it has ever been my privilege to review, and, as mentioned above, they are a SALTY SOUTHEAST CRUISERS’ NET SPONSOR.
There are some other anchorages available on central Tampa Bay’s western shores. I have listed links to those havens below. HOWEVER, none are anything like being as convenient and as close to good shoreside support as the Vinoy Basin.

Little Bayou Southerly Anchorage:
http://cruisersnet.net/?p=4836

Little Bayou Northern Anchorage:
http://cruisersnet.net/?p=4835

Big Bayou Anchorage:
http://cruisersnet.net/?p=4834

Coffeepot Bayou Outer Anchorage:
http://cruisersnet.net/?p=4832

Coffeepot Bayou Inner Anchorage:
http://cruisersnet.net/?p=4831

Smacks Bayou Outer Anchorage:
http://cruisersnet.net/?p=4830

Smacks Bayou Mid Anchorage:
http://cruisersnet.net/?p=4829

Smack Bayou Inner Anchorage:
http://cruisersnet.net/?p=4828

Smacks Bayou South Side Anchorage:
http://cruisersnet.net/?p=4827

Well, I can answer one of Captain Bill’s questions below. To my knowledge, the ONLY ONE of the above described anchorages with dinghy dock access is the Big Bayou Anchorage. At the back of Big Bayou is a public launching ramp, where you can tie your dinghy off temporarily. And, as a plus, several GOOD restaurants are to be found within walking distance. In particular is Munch’s Restaurant (727-896-5972), one block south. Both breakfast and lunch (open 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.) are terrific.
Now for the bad news. I would not even begin to try and navigate a 7-foot draft vessel into Big Bayou! Captains piloting vessels drawing 5 feet or less, however, may find these waters a a good, or at least acceptable, alternative.

THE COFFEEPOT AND SMACKS BAYOU ANCHORAGES ARE POSSIBILITIES W/ GOOD DEPTH IF U CAN GET TO THEM. THE CHARTS DO NOT SHOW A CHANNEL THAT CAN PROVIDE ACCESS FOR MY 7′ DRAFT. HAS ANYONE BEEN ABLE, WHERE AND WHERE CAN U GO ASHORE? IS THIS A CASE OF DELIBERATELY NOT PROVIDING ACTUAL DEPTH .
Bill

The FWC Pilot Program is supposed to improve water access – I fail to see how limiting anchoring is ‘improving’ access. This is another of the Florida anchorages we are losing due to this program.
Wally Moran

MAYBE DEMANS LANDING. SOUTH YACHT BASIN COULD BE USED TEMPORARILY. GOOD DEPTH, HOWEVER THE ST. PETE SAILING CLUB GOES IN AND OUT OF THERE REGULARLY, PARTICULARLY THE KIDS. MIGHT BE ABLE TO ANCHOR CLOSE TO THE BREAKWALL.
Sam Warr

Thanks Sam the South Basin has the depth but is the airport closeness a probem? i’ll try it. Thanks
Bill

We have anchored in the Vinoy Basin on and off since 1986 when we first came to Florida. We used to dinghy ashore to visit the museums, shops, and grab a bite to eat about 20 or 30 times a year. Frequently, our stays were just for the day allowing us to spend our money in town. Regretfully, we will now have to find a different favorite place to go.
Eileen Colon

There is a small anchorage just south of the mun marina at the Harborage Marina in downtown St. Pete at the location on this link: http://www.harboragemarina.com/location.php.
No mooring balls; use your own ground tackle and dinghy to the marina or to a sand bar at the USFSP campus and walk to town. We live aboard at the marina. Good protection and depth and easy access to Tampa Bay and the ICW.
Bart
M/V DEWLAP
DeFever 49 CMY

What will the rules and rates be upon completion?
Bruce W. Watters

Back on 10/6/11, Martin County held its first public forum to discuss the implementation as one of the five sites selected for the Florida Pilot Mooring Field Program, and any associated local anchorage regulations. You can check out the account of that meeting at:

http://cruisersnet.net/?p=71626

Now, a second public forum concerning the same topic has taken place on 11/8/11. A video of this get-together, which went on for several hours, can be viewed at:

http://www.martin.fl.us/portal/page?_pageid=356,1923330&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

Our good friends, and friendly competitors at Waterway Guide, have also penned an excellent account of this meeting at:

http://www.waterwayguide.com/newsupdate.php?area=6#1003

The following article is reproduced by special permission from both Captain Jay Bliss and StAugustine.com.

Letter to the Editor
St. Johns County and Vilano homeowners have reached an accord, DEP and Army Corps of Engineers have permits in place, and significant dredging will take place this winter in the StAugustine channel entrance and off Porpoise Point. Massive federal funds, $20M plus or minus, will pay for dredging and renourishing StAugustine Beach sands. The inlet channel will be twice its width and as deep as 30 feet. Turtles have nested and before they return to lay eggs in Spring 2012 the dredging should be done.
Boaters will be able to access the inlet in relative safety. An onshore wind and an outgoing tide will still create a rollercoaster ride. Once inside, StAugustine’s unique waterworld offers scenic wonders whatever your course. Boaters can look for a new floating dock off the Vilano fishing pier by Spring 2012, providing free short-term docking and ready access to Publix’ new supermarket at Vilano Beach. B&B guests downtown might embark by water taxi at the City dock to shop the Vilano Publix. Certainly boaters at anchor or on moorings will enjoy the convenience of a market close to the water.
City Commissioners and staff are intent upon maximizing revenue from the mooring fields. There are bills to pay, debts to amortize. Their Pilot Program ordinances increase “no anchoring” zones. Moorings are convenient, and at $20 a night, not a bad deal. Anchoring does enjoy a following, however. Picky boaters place their trust in their own equipment. Boaters who read fine print might not sign off on the liability release on the mooring contract. One proposed ordinance limits time at anchor. Similar time limit laws have been declared invalid in Federal courts in Stuart and Naples. Navigation laws, anchoring precedents, predate even StAugustine’s history.
More importantly, we (County, Port, City, residents) need to ask: what has the placement of mooring fields done, and what can we project with the Pilot Program ordinances?
Putting the mooring fields in place required energizing enforcement: we discovered that about ten boats had been long abandoned. The mooring fields then displaced some 28 boaters/boats from the downtown area and from Salt Run, and they’re part of the anchored fleet S of the 312 and N of the Vilano bridge, beyond City limits. Google “StAugustine city limits” for a map.
Imposing the Pilot Program ordinances will further displace about 15 boats beyond City limits. Those boaters will join others who cannot afford to be part of the mooring system. The ordinances will demand more time from City and County and FWC law enforcement. Increasing their duties, adding to the laws, will not improve enforcement of laws already on the books. Overboard dumping, derelicts, are already covered by laws on the books. (Call FWC 407 275 4150 to report on-the-water problems). Those very real challenges do not justify further Pilot Program ordinances. The challenge is enforcing what we have. Will revenues increase significantly?
Every motorist expects to be duly notified with a yellow line, or “ no parking from here to corner” sign. It’s difficult to imagine how we will legally notify our boating guests of all these prohibited anchoring zones, and still generate goodwill.
Our image with the boating public is at risk. We disregard the effects and consequences of anchoring sprawl, and add more fine print, more laws. We court failure in Federal court. We need to make mooring fields more appealing, affordable, rather than make anchoring more prohibitive. When boaters cruise in the StAugustine inlet, they should be greeted with hospitality and choices.

Fantastic even handed commentary from a government official. Yes indeed there are already laws against dumping sewage and against derelicts. Yes you will drive anchorers away including me. I know what my anchor will hold and what condition my rode is in. I sleep better on my own tackle. Looking forward to trying the free dock to shop at publix in the spring of 2012.
Bill Dixon

This is the first report we’ve had here on the Cruisers’ Net that mariners dropping the hook just south of Tampa Bay, near Anna Maria Island, are being hassled. Can anyone else give us a report on a similar or dissimilar experience in these waters?????

Sarasota is working with boating community, which is good. A place boaters want to avoid is Holmes Beach on Anna Maria Island, just noryh of Longboat Key. The code enforcement officer [there] will harass boaters for anchoring in waters around the island. Bestt o bypass Anna Maria Island and go to anywhere where boaters are treated with
Respect.
Beware!!!!!
Captn Steve

We utilize the anchorage off Bradenton Beach on Anna Maria Island southwest of the Cortez Bridge for our “homebase” during the summer. This summer we had a skirmish with the City of Bradenton Beach. The had enacted a requirement for an “anchoring permit”. When approached by their police boat I informed the officer he was violating state law and he hit the throttle and left. Another cruiser received a citation. I contacted FWC, they responded and called the city attorney to “educate” her, city commissioners repealed their illegal ordinance and dropped the case against the cruiser who was cited!
We are now south for the winter but I recently hear that the city police, coast guard, border patrol and FWC did a “lights out” raid on anchored boats there and in Longboat Key! Supposedly for “Homeland Security” looking for drugs, outstanding warrants, and sewage handling. Nothing of significance found or cited according to news reports. No question there are a few unsightly boats anchored there inhabited by some colorful “characters”. As a result the police chief in Bradenton Beach demonstrates an attitude of no respect for federal or state law regarding anchoring, or the constitutional or civil rights of boaters!
Please don’t avoid anchoring off Cortez, Anna Maria Island or Longboat Key because of this. If you are legally anchored and meet all safety equipment and MSD regulations they can’t “run you out of town”! This is not the old wild west, it is still the U.S.A!
Larry Sherman

No, it’s best to point out to this guy that he is acting illegally and to advise them if he doesn’t go away, you’ll call the police to deal with him. He has no business bothering boaters whatsoever and needs to be told.
You should send a copy of this issue to ddickerson@nmma.org, he’s their [Florida Marine Industries Association] lawyer and will send a rude letter to the offending municipality.
Wally Moran

A correction to my post above – Dickerson is with the National Marine Manufacturers Association – not sure what my fingers were up to typing that note. And what Dick sends won’t be rude, although it might be a rude awakening for the municipalities involved.
Given the publicity the state’s anchoring law has received, it’s hard to believe that Bradenton Beach had the nerve to put up an ordinance in direct violation of the law. Seems to me that the City of BB should be up on charges itself – their lawyer absolutely HAD to know the ordinance was illegal, if not, he should be fired. And the fact the officer sped off when challenged is proof that the city knew the ordinance was illegal.
What IS it about Florida? How can their elected officials be so – so – someone help me, what is the word we should use here?
This is why it is so important that every boater becomes involved in the fight against the Pilot Program – because if you don’t, you can expect to see your anchoring rights taken away in Florida. Join Charmaine’s group on Facebook, check out the facts at my blog, http://anchorsawayinFlorida.blogspot.com, but get informed and get involved.
Wally Moran

I am sorry to read all of this. We anchor out on a regular basis at Jew Fish Key (where Long Boat Key ends and Anna Marie Island starts). We dinghy into Moores Stone Crab and Mar Vista restaurants all the time.
We anchor there at least 1 or 2 weekends a month and NEVER have been bothered by any law inforcement at all.
Matter of fact if they see me on the swim platform they come over to just chat for a while.
Victor

On our way to FL for first time. Want to tour east side, Keys and westside before we’re shut out. Could be our one and only trip to the totalitarian state of FL.
Skye

My wife and I are getting ready to go cruising full time in 2012 and we are wondering. Don’t government agencies need probable cause for searches of your boat. I get the Coast Guard inspections and have gone through that, and I understand about stopping and searching boats at sea for drug and immigration enforcement. I don’t understand it being conducted in anchorages on properly registered boats. Can anyone explain?
Peter Treiber

Click Here To Open A Chart View Window, Zoomed To the Location of Anna Maria Island

I have been saying for years and years that the state of Florida is playing with FIRE, when it comes to anchorage regulations, MSD boardings and midnight safety inspections. Let’s all remember that the marine industry is the second largest in the Sunshine State, second only to tourism (and the success of Florida’s “Tourist Industry,” it can be argued, is somewhat tied to the success of the “cruising industry” as well).
Captain Charmaine Smith Ladd, our very special Florida Keys Correspondent, shares her thoughts below on this very issue!

November 4th, 2011

What Cruisers Truly Bring to Tourism
by Charmaine Smith Ladd
It just dawned on me that I’ve never seen a glossy magazine cover showing a mooring field. It’s the magazine cover that piques the interest of a potential consumer, it is there to draw them in to buy it. With that said, there is no vicarious romance with mooring fields. LOL
Boaters and cruisers are always shown having a wonderful time. Or if only a vessel or vessels are shown, the depiction is usually that of in an idyllic, exotic locale that makes the landlocked wannabes’ mouths water. That is the romance of cruising.
All cruisers have friends and family who live vicariously through them. My website has more landlubbers who profess to me their envy at we who lead such rich and rewarding lives. It’s not a monetary stash of riches, but riches that money cannot buy: freedom, or the semblance of freedom. This is why during the winters, cruisers have no shortage of friends and family (and often just mere acquaintances) who wish to visit them. And visit they do!
Most cruisers have blogs or websites that narrate a lot of their travels. We introduce others to places they had not thought about visiting. With us there first, we open the door for others to visit these places as well. This is an overlooked fact that landlubbers who think cruisers are just, well, cruisers sitting in their waters, do not realize. We bring more tourism to their areas each time we visit. Others love destinations to explore, especially when relatives and friends are already there and tout the friendliness, warmth, and beauty of a new-to-them community.
Our guests fly or drive to meet up with us. They stay aboard with us a day or two, if that, and the remainder of the time are guests at local hotels and motels. We entertain them and they entertain us. We frequent local establishments and enjoy the sights. We are cruisers and tourists, yet the tourism from cruisers brings in more tourists to the area.
Areas in Florida are contemplating placing regulations on cruisers. This truly should been seen in the bigger picture as we actually do more for these areas than is commonly perceived. In all of the continental U.S. there is no place quite like Florida in the winter. Our northern friends and relatives relish the thought of we cruisers sitting down here where it is warm and flock to us. They come where we go.
Sitting in a mooring field is not the romance depicted on the magazine covers, and with good reason. There is a place for mooring fields as they serve a very useful purpose. However, there’s nothing quite like swinging from the hook and enjoying cocktails at sunset with those who have never experienced it. It is a romantic impression they do not forget. So much so, that many come back on their own to the areas where they first climbed aboard our vessels. We may have cruised on to another destination, but they will fly in and stay at your hotels and remember “when.”
May those making regulatory decisions about the future of anchoring in Florida’s waters also remember “when.”
Charmaine Smith Ladd
SSECN Special Correspondent, Florida Keys
“Bringing you the low down from down low!”
csmithladd@marinersbarr.org

Well said Charmaine! Over the course of many years of visiting Florida we have often had guests fly in to visit us aboard, while often staying at hotels ashore for part of their trips too. In fact, we too have stayed in hotels, rented cars, eaten at restaurants, gone to amusement parks, visited museums and zoos, purchased things in stores, and spent money on all sorts of “normal” tourist attractions while being based on our boat in Florida. However, we prefer to anchor out and we don’t go to places we can’t anchor. It is not just the mooring field that will not get our money if they force us away.
John Kettlewell

Well said, Charmaine. Keep it up.
Steve and Sheila Kamp,
S/V Carolina,
Southbound

We sincerely thank Captain Dawn Moore for her eye-witness account below of the November 3, 2011 Sarasota public forum meeting at which the city’s participation in the Florida Pilot Mooring Field Program was considered. Sounds like the cruising community was well represented at this gathering. Let’s just hope all this effort does some good!

The meeting in Sarasota last night was well attended and cruisers were impressively represented by well spoken boaters. The main message was that we need choices – moorings, anchorages and marinas.
Apparently, to participate in the program the municipality must have an ordinance on the books. In this case it would only apply to a limited area between Marina Jack and the barrier islands. Some interesting suggestions were:
forget the program
have a harbormaster and require “check-in”
require a USGG Aux current inspection sticker
limit stay or no limit
Other messages were that the city needs to show value to entice anyone to use the moorings and that the derelict boat issue can and should be solved using the laws already on the books. It was pointed out that the currently anchored sailboats all have masts and no one was using tarps for waterproofing, so the system is working.
There was supposed to be an issue from homeowners who want to restrict anchoring in their neighborhood, but no one spoke up on this.
So, if the City simply needs an ordinance (that won’t duplicate other state and local laws), how about this – “No anchoring within 150 feet of permitted mooring fields.” (There are or will be three: City of Sarasota, Sarasota Sailing Squadron & New College.
Dawn Moore
Eagle 40 – “Clyde”

Shame on Sarasota County for hiding behind “environmental” concerns when its all a matter of putting money into the pockets of those with the right “connections”. I’ve had it. The 2012 elections need to oust each and every incumbent at every level, local-state-federal. Its a big country and no one needs to serve more than one term at any level of government. For those traveling by boat through Sarasota County, please feel free to join us for an overnight stop. We can provide safe and secure anchorage and if you would like a night or two on land, off the boat, we can help you out there also. This whole pilot program charade is just a way to get money out of anyone coming within the County’s borders. Its shameful.
Michael

Regarding Dawn’s report: Participants in the Pilot Program (PP) do have the option to decline the opportunity to enact ordinances. The Public Stakeholder Input meetings are for the public to voice their opinions: it is what they want that is supposed to matter. Nothing in the Legislative directive states that in order to participate in the PP, a site must enact an ordinance. There are many creative ways of reaching Pilot Program Objectives: ordinances are quickly being discovered as the least friendly and the most unnecessary! Thanks for your report.
Hugs,
Charmaine

I appreciate Dawn’s comments, but why an arbitrary number like 150 feet? As long as your boat can’t swing into the mooring zone, a channel, or a maritime structure it should be fine. The law should be simply that you can’t obstruct these things. No boater I know of carries devices onboard to accurately measure 150 feet. It has to be possible to obey the law without purchasing surveying equipment and learning how to use it!
John Kettlewell