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
March 8, 2013 Bayborough is also off limits. I was just there and can buoys proclaim the area is a construction area and vessels will be removed. Cruisers are not welcome here. I’m not spending one red cent in st pete. Steve Roth
There are countless boater friendly spots in Pinellas county and Tampa. Boaters have no need to run the St. Pete anchoring gambit. Vote with your wallet. Glenn Parker
On Wednesday, December 5, 2012, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission approved, with several modifications (see below), the proposed anchorage regulations for Martin County and Stuart, Florida. This is one of the five sites previously approved to take part in the Florida Pilot Mooring Field Program. As any of you familiar with this long, drawn-out process already know, the approved sites are given the right to regulate anchorage in their waters, IF AND ONLY IF THE REGULATIONS ARE APPROVED BY THE FWC! It is not stretching the truth at all to report that this particular set of regulations is the most controversial of the five sites participating in the pilot program, with the possible exception of St. Augustine’s 30-day anchoring limit, which was ultimately shot down by the FWC. The Salty Southeast Cruisers’ Net has published several previous articles on the proposed Martin County regulations (see /?p=100456). Now, with some FORTUNATE modification inserted by the FWC, these regulations have been approved, and will almost certainly go into effect shortly. ALL CRUISERS WHO EVER PLAN ON ANCHORING IN THE STUART, JENSEN BEACH REGION WILL WANT TO READ THE TEXT BELOW, AND LEARN ALL THERE IS TO KNOW! (See, I was a poet, and you did not know it!). First, let’s hear from our “man on the scene in Stuart, Florida, maritime attorney Captain Ted Guy:
Basically, the City of Stuart is banning anchoring within 150 ft of the existing mooring field and other “marine infrastructure” (docks, seawalls, etc.) throughout the city limits (that provision is probably reasonable) and will require anchored cruisers in the City Limits to demonstrate navigable mobility of their boats and pumpout receipts every ten days. In the Manatee Pocket, anchoring will only be allowed in the charted small anchoring triangles (see the third map I sent you in October with the draft ordinance). The ordinance does not provide the exemption for live-aboards provided by Florida Statutes, an obvious legal omission. W.E. “Ted” Guy, Jr.
And, here is the official press release from the FWC:
Meeting Wednesday in Apalachicola, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) approved, with contingencies, the city of Stuart/Martin County’s proposed ordinance for the anchoring and mooring pilot program coordinated by the FWC. The ordinance is in response to the Florida statute allowing a specific number of local governments to adopt regulations on anchoring and mooring vessels in their jurisdiction. This pilot program provides an opportunity for the FWC and the Florida Legislature to evaluate the subject more fully. `The goal of the anchoring and mooring pilot program is to explore potential options for regulating the anchoring or mooring of non-live-aboard vessels outside the boundaries of public mooring fields,’ said Maj. Jack Daugherty, leader of the FWC’s Boating and Waterways Section. `The FWC’s role is to provide consultation and technical assistance on the issues.’ Local governments for the five communities participating in the pilot program are responsible for soliciting public input and adopting local ordinances within their jurisdictions. These ordinances must be approved by the FWC and will continue to be evaluated by the FWC and the Legislature. FWC staff members have been attending the sites’ public-input meetings to provide information on the pilot program. Two meetings were held in Martin County on the topic. Rather than writing an ordinance that was countywide, city of Stuart/Martin County participants established four areas in the county in which the ordinance would be effective. They selected one in the Indian River, two in the St. Lucie River, and one in the area referred to as Manatee Pocket in Stuart. In the St. Lucie and Indian River locations, the ordinance prohibits anchoring and mooring within 300 feet of the mooring field and other maritime infrastructure. In the Manatee Pocket location, the prohibition applies to the whole area except within provided anchoring areas. `There is a ‘˜safe harbor’ exception in all areas for vessels anchored temporarily due to severe weather or mechanical issues,’ Daugherty said. For vessels that have been anchored in any of the areas for 10 consecutive days, the ordinance requires vessel operators to document that they can successfully navigate under their own power by visiting designated locations. After that first documentation of operability, they must also demonstrate compliance every six months. `This will ensure that boats can operate safely and will also deter abandoned or derelict vessels,’ Daugherty said. `This protects the marine environment and keeps waterways safe for all to use.’ A final part of the ordinance is a requirement to demonstrate compliance with marine sanitation laws by providing proof that marine sanitation devices have been pumped out within the 10 previous days. Commissioners discussed the ordinance, asked questions and heard public comment, ultimately approving it with a few contingencies, including reducing the buffer distances in the St. Lucie River areas to 150 feet while still restricting anchoring between the Stuart mooring field and eastern shoreline. Commissioners also required the removal of the Indian River location until the associated mooring field is constructed. With this approval, the county can adopt the ordinance to make it effective. All ordinances adopted under the pilot program expire on July 1, 2014, unless re-enacted by the Legislature. The ordinances for St. Augustine, St. Petersburg, Sarasota and Monroe County have already been approved. For more information on the anchoring and mooring pilot program, visit MyFWC.com/Boating or call 850-488-5600.
Thanks to Mr. Guy and all the others that commented it appears the approved regulations are much more reasonable than the original proposal. However, as usual, the law is poorly written. For example, if one arrives, then anchors for 10 days, haven’t you already demonstrated that you can navigate your vessel? How else would you get there? If you sail away for a week and then return for another 10 days do you have to once again demonstrate you can navigate by going to a designated location? Do these laws also apply to boats on moorings? If not, why not? Also, how can one provide proof of pumpout if you don’t pumpout’“using a composting or incinerating system, or a porta pottie? This just further adds confusion to the hodge-podge of anti-anchoring ordinances in Florida that most boaters will be completely unaware of. John Kettlewell
We have a 75 gallon holding tank. If we pump it every ten days, to get our money’s worth we are going to have to invite many, many guests aboard to take a’¦ Chris
My inclination is to plan on sailing through those areas, i.e. stop before & after; there are enough challenges without jumping through hoops and being hasselled. Current state law allows recovery of costs for ‘˜derelict’ vessels which go down or threaten safety of others from the registered owners. my 2c. David Hendry
How will boats with composting heads comply with the proof of pump out requirement? Dick Mills
Some composting toilets are classified as `portable’ just like a porta potty. Because they don’t have holding tanks, they are exempt from such regulations. Believe it or not, the USCG prefers portable systems if it is possible and reasonable to use. Portable systems are much more difficult to discharge illegally because to discharge them you have to be conspicuous. You can’t simply go below and open a valve out of sight. Additionally, with a portable composting toilet, there is no urgency to empty the collection container and therefore no need to break the law. Sandy Graves
Hard to demonstrate pump-out when the Martin County pump-out boat doesn’t show up. H Mason
Being the only person aboard my boat with a 50 gal. holding tank, I only need a pump out twice a month, at the most. I last pumped out at Stuart Loggerhead Marina when I fueled and the receipt had no mention of a pump out. I keep a pump out logbook. If a logbook is sufficient for the FAA , why not for Martin County? Don Neville
We are planning a cruise south from the Chesapeake Bay through Florida this winter (2013). How can we find out where we can or cannot anchor in the Boater Friendly State of Florida. Thanks Raymond W. Smith, Fire Dog
I guess Stuart will just have to served notice of intent to suit for violation of civil rights afet the first ticket is issued to a composting boat, interesting politicians in that area, dumb would be a compliment. Dennis McMurtry
Fiasco in Stuart, Florida/Martin County An Article/Editorial by Claiborne S. Young Editorial Director Salty Southeast Cruisers’ Net
Back in 2009, when intense negotiations were underway to help pass the new Florida Anchoring Law, it was with more than a little trepidation that the Salty Southeast Cruisers’ Net, Boat/US, the Florida MIA, and the SSCA, reluctantly agreed to support a compromise proposal for a Florida Pilot Mooring Field Program, IN RETURN FOR COOPERATION FROM THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES TO INCLUDE CRUISER FRIENDLY LANGUAGE IN THE BILL, in particular, modifying the definition of “live-aboard vessels.” The primary reason for all this nervousness was a deep suspicion that some communities/counties that were approved as one of the pilot mooring field sites, might try and use this program to run off anchored cruisers almost entirely. Fortunately, that has largely not happened, but, then again, that’s probably due more to hard work by Boat/US, BARR (Boater’s Anchoring Rights and Responsibilities) and the Cruisers’ Net (among others), rather than any far seeing, cruiser friendly planning on the part of the communities involved in the program. Well, I guess there had to be at least one really bad apple in this proverbial barrel, and that entity is Stuart, Florida and surrounding Martin County. Their proposed anchorage regulations, which have twice been rejected by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC), would basically outlaw anchoring everywhere in Stuart, and the surrounding waters of the St. Lucie and Indian Rivers, except for a small plot in Manatee Pocket, which is, by the way, is not within easy striking distance of all the businesses and dining attractions in downtown Stuart (though there is a West Marina and another set of restaurants within dinghy distance of the Manatee Pocket proposed anchorage). On top of all this, these proposed regulations are Draconian in their penalties, and are so complex as to allow almost unlimited interpretation by local/county officials and law enforcement officers! THE CRUISING COMMUNITY MUST UNITE TO OPPOSE THIS PLAN! TO BE BLUNT, IT MUST BE STOPPED!
Opposition (or any other sort) comments can be registered at:
Also, may we URGE you to take the time to read the comments from fellow cruisers below. Captain Ted Guy is the former president of the Treasure Coast Marine Industries Association, and a Stuart based attorney who perhaps knows more about the Florida anchoring issue than anyone else in the Sunshine State. Ms. Virginia P. Sherlock is a cruiser and attorney based in Stuart, and, of course, Captain Charmine Smith Ladd is a special reporter for the Salty Southeast Cruisers’ Net, and the founder of BARR (Boater’s Anchoring Rights and Responsibilites). Absorb all of this, AND THEN REGISTER YOUR OPPOSITION BY FOLLOWING THE LINK ABOVE.
Claiborne, This is one of the biggest power grab boondoggles I’ve seen in Stuart for a long time. Read it, download the maps, and imagine how it’s trying to encompass Live-Aboards (specifically exempted by the authorizing statute Sec. 327.4105 F.S.) and all vessels. I think the FWCC is more or less on our side in this. Twice they have rejected the ordinance for hearing, but the County and City have not cleaned it up to conform to the law. W.E. “Ted” Guy, Jr.
It would affect cruisers staying in Martin County or the City of Stuart waters for ten days or more. It uses the word “vessel” repeatedly without pointing out that live-aboards are exempt under the authorizing statute, sec. 327.4105 F.S. It covers all waters in the City Limits and some County waters West of the City, waters off Jensen Beach within 1,000 ft of the shore, and the Manatee Pocket, ie: all the favorite, desirable waters for anchoring in our county and city. In effect, it would force cruisers to rent moorings in the City mooring Field and the proposed and permitted Jensen Beach mooring field, or anchor in very small areas of the Pocket. The ordinance is over broad, overly complex, vague, and much more broad than the authorizing statute ever contemplated. Our County Commission passed it in response to complaints by waterfront property owners who don’t like to see boats anchored near their homes. Public comments are due at FWCC by Nov. 5th; then about the ninth they will publish a summary of comments and the staff recommendation. FWCC will vote it up or down next spring. W.E. “Ted” Guy, Jr.
Public Comment on proposed Stuart/Martin County Anchoring and Mooring Ordinance The proposed ordinance raises serious concerns that must be addressed by FFWCC before approving the draft, including (1) Over-reaching and over-broad regulations that go far beyond the intent of the pilot program; (2) Complex and difficult to follow language that makes the ordinance hard to understand and, therefore, extremely difficult to comply with; (3) Overly harsh penalties, making it a crime that can result in incarceration for failure to comply with what is an extremely convoluted ordinance enacted as part of a two-year experimental program; and (4) Reducing access to navigable waters by failing to provide alternatives to the boating public. The revised draft of the proposed ordinance has not addressed the critical issue of over-reaching by the local jurisdictions which appear intent on prohibiting anchoring or mooring in waters of the state throughout Martin County. Of the three pilot program areas ‘“ part of the St. Lucie River within the City of Stuart and Martin County, part of the Indian River in the Jensen Beach area, and the Manatee Pocket ‘“ only one area has an existing operational mooring field (the City of Stuart). The ordinance does not require an operational mooring field to be available but rather prohibits anchoring and mooring in an area where a mooring field has been issued permits but has not been constructed and is not likely to be constructed before the pilot program ends (since there is widespread public objection to the project and no dedicated funding source). This allows the County to prohibit anchoring and mooring in an area where there is no alternative for local recreational boaters, fishermen or cruising vessels. There is no justification for prohibiting anchoring or mooring within 1,000 feet of the western shoreline of the Indian River Lagoon. In local discussions, residents have been unable to determine exactly where the 1,000-foot boundary is. How can boaters traveling through the area figure out where the regulated area is when locals can’t identify the boundaries? This is especially troublesome since there’s no existing mooring field within the pilot program area. Even the 300-foot boundary set out for the City of Stuart pilot program area and the Manatee Pocket area are excessive and confusing. Since there is no existing mooring field in the Manatee Pocket area, the ordinance requires a mooring permit issued by the Department of Environmental Protection or restricts anchoring and mooring to two defined `anchor areas’. The proposed ordinance clearly has gone far afield of the intent of the pilot program to promote establishment and use of public mooring fields and promote public access to waters of the state. The ordinance is designed to limit public access, even criminalizing non-compliance, which may have a chilling effect on boaters and even day fishermen who may be caught in the extremely wide net of these proposed regulations. The proposed ordinance also is counter to the statutory pilot program’s intent in that it appears to apply to live-aboard as well as non-live-aboard vessels. The Legislature established the pilot program `to explore potential options for regulating the anchoring or mooring of non-live-aboard vessels outside the marked boundaries of public mooring fields.’ Section 327.4105, F.S. The law provides that `a county or municipality selected for participation in the pilot program may regulate by ordinance the anchoring of vessels, other than live-aboard vessels . . . outside of a mooring field.’ The Stuart/Martin County proposal appears to apply to live-aboards, using the pilot program as a means of prohibiting live-aboard vessels throughout the pilot program areas. The proposed ordinance does not meet the intent of the pilot program to regulate anchoring or mooring of non-live-aboard vessels. The proposed ordinance is convoluted, establishing different regulations for the three separate pilot program areas, and extremely difficult to understand. The revised version of the proposed ordinance has not addressed concerns that were previously raised, such as providing criminal penalties in an experimental, short-lived ordinance that is clearly going to be subject to revision if the pilot program is renewed. A pilot program is, by definition, a `test program’ that should not include criminal penalties at this early stage when those who must comply with it are still trying to figure out the rules. Some of the regulations set out in the ordinance appear to conflict with the mooring field operational plan that was previously adopted by Martin County and repeals anchoring restrictions within the Manatee Pocket which have been in place nearly 40 years. While the City of Stuart qualified for inclusion in the pilot program by virtue of its operating mooring field, Martin County should not have been included in the program and has not made allowances for its failure to provide viable alternatives to recreational, sports, and cruising boaters and to avoid severe limitations on access to public waterways by drafting a proposed ordinance which contains ambiguous language and overly broad definitions and lacks any foundation in research or studies to support arbitrary distance restrictions. The FFWCC should reject the Stuart/Martin County proposed ordinance as drafted. Virginia P. Sherlock LITTMAN, SHERLOCK & HEIMS, P.A.
Just received the public comment from Virginia Sherlock on behalf of those she is representing in Jensen Beach (see below). I agree wholeheartedly with her objections. Please consider this correspondence on behalf of all the members of Mariners Barr as being in agreement with her stance that the Stuart/Martin County proposal should be rejected. We here at Mariners Barr feel that Stuart/Martin County’s proposed ordinance is so blatantly uncooperative as far as meeting the objectives of the Pilot Program, that they should be removed as a participant from the Program altogether. As we all are fully aware, there are many many problems with the ordinance as it is written. Stuart/Martin County is well aware also. We have gone through this process so many times without any real effort on the part of Stuart/Martin County to address those problems, I feel strongly they are wasting our time and yours. The bottom line is that Stuart/Martin County has made no real effort to participate. They have made no real effort to address the issues the public and your Office has raised during this entire process. Their persistence in demanding excessive setbacks that have no basis for benefiting the public appear to be tailored for the purposes of prohibiting public access rather than promoting it. Their zeal for criminal penalties is quite disturbing. So much so that there is not a doubt in my mind that if given the opportunity, Stuart/Martin County would enact harsher penalties as soon as it is legal to do so (or even if not quite legal). Their disdain for boaters and cruisers is apparent. It is our stand that, given their history, Stuart/Martin County would more than likely overreach in the enforcement of any ordinances enacted and use them to harass and discriminate against the very public for which the Pilot Program has stated it would promote access. Removing Stuart/Martin County from further participation in Florida’s Anchoring & Mooring Pilot Program is the right thing to do. Respectfully submitted, Charmaine Smith Ladd Executive Director, Mariners Barr
when the municipalities and Cities realize where the power lies..watch out !! specially the last sentance 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 Boating Public is a definite minority and it is only by the laws which exist in this country can navigational rights be preserved.} Let them have their way, then sue the ******** and do not settle, money talks,,bs walks .. Dennis Mcmurtry
Marco Island is a large community south of the city of Naples on the West Coast of Florida. After many, many years of struggle, the city of Marco Island, as you will read below, has finally given up the attempt to regulate anchorage by cruising vessels, contrary to Florida state law. Some of you may remember that back in 2007, I journeyed to Naples, entirely at my own expense, to be an “expert” (boy, did I have them fooled) witness in the trial of Capt. Dave Dumas. This brave individual undertook a “civil disobedience” by anchoring his vessel, contrary to the local statutes, with the express goal of being taken to court by the city of Marco Island. Eventually, he was found innocent, as the local regulations were clearly at variance with Florida state law. All this hub-bub has now been superseded by the far more cruiser friendly, but still NOT perfect, 2009 state of Florida anchoring law. Even so, it’s really good to remember those who fought so long and hard for Florida anchoring rights. The cruising community owes a HUGE debt of gratitude to the Sailing Association of Marco Island (SAMI), their leaders, and, particularly Captain Dave Dumas. MANY THANKS TO YOU BRAVE WARRIORS!!!
Subject: Marco Island, FL Amends Waterway Ordinance and Removes Anchoring Restrictions
Tonight at 6:15 pm at the Sept. 17th meeting of the City of Marco Island council meeting, the anchoring restrictions enacted in May 2006 were repealed by an amendment to their Waterways ordinance. This is the end of an over six year battle. In Jan. of 2007, Capt. Dave Dumas on his Krogen 42 “Kinship” was cited by the Marco Police for violating the anchoring ordinance. In Oct. of 2007, Att. Donald Day and his law firm in Naples, Fl defended Dumas pro-Bono and won a Collier County Court ruling when Judge Rob Crown declared the anchoring provisions of the ordinance unconstitutional after an eight hour hearing on a motion to dismiss the citation. The City finally dropped an appeal to the ruling in 2009 and after three more years of prodding the City Council tonight voted unanimously to remove the invalid sections from their code of ordinances. The support of Att. Day, the Sailing Association of Marco Is. (S.A.M.I.) and over 25 other organizations and individuals was invaluable in this rare success over “City Hall”. The rights of freedom of navigation will continue to need defending, but this success is sweet. Thanks to all who contributed. Dave Dumas Lee Oldershaw Herman Diebler Karl Henning for S.A.M.I.
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission approved the Monroe County anchorage regulations associated with the Florida Pilot Mooring Field Program. While the final version must still be approved by the Monroe County Board of Commissioners, that final nod would seem to be a mere formality. We conclude that, after all the many public forums, voluminous comments published here on the Cruisers’ Net and on other nautical forums, and a lot of GOOD work by our very special Florida Keys correspondent (and founder of BARR – Boaters’ Action Rights and Resonsibilties), Captain Charmaine Smith Ladd, we have a new set of Florida Keys anchorage regulations which will almost certainly be in effect by the winter 2012 – 2013 cruising season! HOWEVER, as you will see, this is not nearly as onerous as it initially sounds! Following my editorial remarks below, you will discover a LOT of verbiage about these regulations, but even before you read, and try to make sense of all that, we want to distill the facts for you as best we can. And, believe it or else, from all that we have been able to gather, the bottom line is this is really a “good thing” (mostly) for the cruising community. It’s NOT a good thing for those who live ashore and want to store their boats for free at anchor. Read on! First of all, everyone needs to remember that, for many years now, all of the Florida Keys (Monroe County) waters have been a NO DISCHARGE ZONE. That means, among other things, that ALL vessels must regularly pump out their waste tanks, and Lectra San type devices are NOT acceptable. And, along with these long-time regulations, comes the possibility of legal boardings by any law enforcement agency to make sure that overboard discharge vales are PADLOCKED SHUT and all other MSD regulations are being observed! The status of all Florida Keys MSD regulations remain the same as has been the case for some time. The new anchorage regulations detailed below do not change these prohibitions in any way. The new Florida Keys anchorage regulations really boil down to three new prohibitions: 1. Within the managed anchorages (see below) vessel owners must show evidence of regular waste pump-outs when asked to furnish such proof by a law enforcement officer.
2. Within the managed anchorages, law enforcement officers now have the ability to ticket vessels they consider derelicts or near derelicts (in danger or sinking or breaking free).
3. In Marathon and Key West, “no anchorage buffer zones” have been established around the city mooring fields.
OK, what does this mean to the cruising community. First, in sifting through all the print below, we discover that the only “managed anchorages” are found on the waters of Boca Chica Basin, Key West Harbor, Cow Key Channel and Boot Key Harbor. NOTE THAT THE NEW REGULATIONS APPLY ONLY TO VESSELS ANCHORED IN THESE MANAGED BASINS. If you, for instance, throw out the hook hard by Lignumvitae Key (near Islamorado), none of the new regs apply, excepting those which have already been in force by virtue of the fact that Florida Keys waters are a no discharge zone! One other quick note about the managed anchorages; originally Sunset Cove in Key Largo was slated to be among this group, but the FWC, quite correctly we think, decided these waters are much too far from a state approved mooring field to be included. It appears to us that the real intent of these new regulations is to help make sure vessels are not pumping raw sewage overboard, AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, to provide law enforcement officers with a new tool to help remove abandoned, derelict and near derelict vessels from Florida Keys waters. If you have read earlier Salty Southeast Cruisers’ Net editorials on Florida Anchoring Rights, you already know that it is our collective opinion that one of the real culprits in this struggle has been the Sunshine State’s very real problem with derelicts and what I term, “live-aboard hulks.” These are vessels that will never move again (unless it’s straight down to the bottom), and certainly should not be afforded anything like the status of “cruising craft.” Yes, the new Florida Keys anchorage regulations are NOT perfect! HOWEVER, it is our editorial opinion that these new prohibitions are a genuine effort to address the derelict problem, without driving the cruising community away from the Florida Keys! If your eyes can stand it, read on, and let us know whether you agree with our assessment, or not! PLEASE send your reactions to CruisersNet@triad.twcbc.com.
The FWC knows it cannot stop the recreational use of waters (navigational use is even more important). It’s a very thin line. Bottom line is that I think we all agree their target is becoming clearer, even for landlubbers who want sailors to stay out of their backyards (that isn’t going to be upheld by the FWC): the focus is to deter boats from becoming derelict and ultimately left behind for someone else to clean up. It puts out the warning sign to those across the nation that the Keys is not someplace you can just find anything that floats to live upon and shirk responsibility. I have no problem with that. This is good, as it does not tread upon the needs of cruisers or even those who are responsible on their liveaboards. Our influence was vital for harnessing in the tendency of others to overreach with even more unnecessary regulations. I have no doubt we all made a tremendous difference in how these ordinances were written. Kudos to us!! Hugs, Charmaine
No real surprise, but I do feel our efforts in some small way contributed to making the ordinance more reasonable. I can see our influence in many parts of the ordinance. John Kettlewell
Thursday, September 6, 2012 State suggests new ruling for live-aboards BY TIMOTHY O’HARA Citizen Staff tohara@keysnews.com The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation (FWC) Commissioner Richard Corbett cited the “pirate-like mentality” of Florida Keys live-aboard boaters before he voted in favor of a new set of rules for vessels moored off the Keys. He wanted to make sure the test rules will not only be enforced, but be complied with. “We are going to start out gentle but we are going to keep applying pressure until we get compliance,” FWC Major Jack Daugherty said Wednesday during a meeting in Tampa. “The Keys are a diverse place with a lot of diverse people …. We want to get voluntary compliance. The only way to get to compliance is to warn …. Educate, educate and educate.” Corbett called the Keys a “truly different part of the world.” The rules require proof of regular sewage pump-out and the tagging of vessels at risk of sinking or becoming derelict. Vessels would be labeled at risk of sinking at the discretion of law enforcement officers based on certain criteria, such as listing, being aground, beached or taking on water. The rules also create “no-anchoring buffer zones” adjacent to the mooring fields in the cities of Key West and Marathon, where officials have expressed concern about vessels breaking free and striking boats inside managed mooring fields. The rules will be for non-managed mooring fields off Key West Harbor and Cow Key Channel off Stock Island. The rules, which were created by Monroe County’s Marine Resources Division, do not call for violators’ vessels to be removed, but the owners would be warned and eventually face fines if the issues were not addressed. After a first warning, a $50 fine would be levied. The fine would increase to $100 for a second offense, and $250 for a third offense. All subsequent offenses would be $250. Owners would have 30 days between fines to address issues, said Rich Jones, Monroe County’s marine resources division director. “This is in no way intended to push boaters out,” Jones told the FWC board on Wednesday. “We want them to be responsible …. We don’t have a silver bullet. What you see are the best ideas that are tolerable to the public.” The rules still have to come before the Monroe County Commission before they are implemented. The County Commission has not set a date to vote on the rules. The commission has given tentative approval of the rules. If approved, the rules would be in place until 2014. They will then be reviewed by the FWC and sent to the state legislature, which could vote to make them permanent.
Florida Fish and Wildlife (FWC) Offical Press Release:
Meeting Wednesday in Tampa, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) approved, with one contingency, Monroe County’s proposed ordinance for the anchoring and mooring pilot program coordinated by the FWC. The ordinance is in response to the Florida Statute allowing a specific number of local governments to adopt regulations on anchoring and mooring vessels in their jurisdiction. This pilot program provides an opportunity for the FWC and the Florida Legislature to evaluate the subject more fully. “The goal of the anchoring and mooring pilot program is to explore potential options for regulating the anchoring or mooring of non-live-aboard vessels outside the boundaries of public mooring fields,” said Maj. Jack Daugherty, leader of the FWC’s Boating and Waterways Section. “The FWC’s role is to provide consultation and technical assistance on the issues.” Local governments for the five communities participating in the pilot program are responsible for soliciting public input and adopting local ordinances within their jurisdictions. These ordinances must be approved by the FWC and will continue to be evaluated by the FWC and the Legislature. FWC staff members have been attending the sites’ public-input meetings to provide information on the pilot program. Three meetings were held in Monroe County on the topic. “Monroe County’s ordinance provides for some specific areas designated as ‘˜managed anchoring zones’ and ‘˜no-anchoring buffer zones,'”Daugherty said. The managed anchoring zones, including Boca Chica Basin, Sunset Cove, Key West Harbor, Cow Key Channel and Boot Key Harbor, are areas in which vessels need to meet certain requirements – including proof they have been pumped out – and do not present certain characteristics: specifically, being derelict or pre-derelict vessels. “These requirements are designed to protect the marine environment, enhance navigational safety and deter improperly stored, abandoned or derelict vessels,” Daugherty said. The “no-anchoring buffer zones,” including Boca Chica Basin, Boot Key Harbor and Seaplane Basin, are areas outside of and immediately adjacent to permitted public mooring fields. There, no anchoring or mooring of any kind is permitted. “There are exceptions for certain vessels and activities,” Daugherty said, “like commercial vessels, military operations, vessels anchored temporarily for fishing or other recreational activities and in case of an emergency.” Commissioners discussed the ordinance, asked questions and heard public comment, ultimately approving it with the contingency that the Sunset Cove-managed anchorage zone provision be removed. With this approval, the county can adopt the ordinance to make it effective. All ordinances adopted under the pilot program expire on July 1, 2014, unless re-enacted by the Legislature. Public meetings also have been held in the other four participant sites: Sarasota; Stuart, in coordination with Martin County; St. Petersburg; and St. Augustine. The ordinances for St. Augustine, St. Petersburg and Sarasota have already been approved, and the developing ordinances from the remaining area will be presented at future Commission meetings. For more information on the anchoring and mooring pilot program, visit MyFWC.com/Boating or call 850-488-5600.
And, below we present comments on the new Florida Keys anchorage regulations from the cruising community:
In general the management of mooring fields has had a positive impact. In fairness, however, if boaters need to prove that they have been responsible with their poop then pet owners should also provide proof of responsible poop disposal. We could also include cities waste treatment plants that frequently, if not always, do not meet epa standards. And then elctra-scan owners who treat their waste at a higher level of cleanliness than required of cities seem to be treated a little worse than their poop. All that said, thanks for the hard and tedious work. Always FOR SAILtoo
Thank You Claiborne and Ms. Ladd for all your hard work and communications efforts. Bill Dixon
IMHO there is a lack of pump-out facilities in the Keys. Many of the public marinas below Miami do not have pump-out. Sailboats with limited holding tanks have a problem if anchoring for any period of time. You must get to Marathon or Key West where there are pump-out boats, but now you won’t be able to anchor. Both locations were full-up last year and probably will be this year. Has Royer
Claiborne: In your comments you state law enforcement officials will be able to board vessels to insure overboard discharge valves are “padlocked shut”. I am not aware of a change in the Florida MSD regs that require “padlocking” as the only means of securing the valve. At last reading my impression is that the valve must be “secured”. I spoke to Lt. Dave Dupree (FWC Monroe County) a few years ago and he advised locking, wire ties, removal of the handle or similar solutions to prevent accidental discharge. Has there been a regulation change I am unaware of or is there one in the actual new proposed regulations? Thanks, John N. Cover, s/v Shadow, Hudson, Florida
Claiborne replies Captain John: No, as far as I know there has not been a change in the “secured” requirements of overboard discharge valves. I used the term “padlocking” because my research has consistently shown that just chaining the overboard valves is NOT sufficient, and can result in ticketing. I suspect your research is also correct, in that wire ties and removal of the handle would also be considered “secured.” However, with that being said, what we have always done while cruising in the keys is chain and padlock our overboard discharge valves. This plan has passed multiple inspections over the years.
Captain Robert Lucas, aboard S/V Aquitaine, has sent us a very interesting idea about a strategy that cruisers might employ when their vessel is boarded by Law Enforcement. The Salty Southeast Cruisers’ Net neither endorses nor takes issue with the strategy set out by Captain Lucas. All we will say is that it’s certainly interesting! I’m linking to the full article below, as it is lengthy.
Claiborne, I tried this and it worked. Took about fifteen minutes of discussion, but the officer, after making three phone calls, said he was not authorized to sign any document. He wished me a “good day” and left. Captain Robert Lucas S/V Aquitaine Bradenton, FL
BRAVO! and bravo again! I always wondered just which bureaucrat or politician gave up our Fourth Amendment rights regarding unreasonable search. My guess is that printers are humming already (if you’ve got one aboard). I hope we can find some more results of this tactic! Capt Mike S/V Blue Skye
Captain Lucas: In checking the regs, I found: Coast Guard may go aboard any United States vessel at any time, anywhere to conduct a documentation and safety inspection. A search of a U.S. vessel beyond this type of inspection is subject to limitations under the United States Constitution. If a search extends beyond this narrowly defined scope, a court may be asked to evaluate the legality of the search by balancing the individual’s right to privacy in the specific circumstances of the search against society’s interest in detecting criminal conduct. Captain Whitney
Cpt. Lucas does not state which authority he is re. to’¦ USCG, FMP, county?? Presumably it’s th CG but’¦ I am reasonably sure that Cpt. Whitney is correct in his assessment. Still, just the novelty of being presented with such a doc. might cause enough confusion w/ officer on the scene and higher-ups to make them pause. I do think, though, that this would certainly be useful in the case of boarding by auth. other than CG. No lawyer I, but seems reasonable. Imagine what would happen if everyone demanded the signing of such a doc. every time some auth. wanted to board a vessel. Gov’t. of the people’¦by the people!!!! Dr. W. W. Waldrope
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:
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
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
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
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
Share:
Comments from Cruisers (1)
TonyMalone- March 14, 2019 - 3:26 pm
These "live aboard hulks" aren't a problem as you describe. these are peoples homes. Shame on anyone who tries to take anyone's home away from them.
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 /?p=46788). A slightly later article provided more details (see /?p=51002).
Gasparilla Bayou Anchorage
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:
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 (/?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:
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 /?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
More than a few of St. Augustine’s north mooring field buoys remain empty because of shoaling of the bay bottom. This prevents the marina from being able to assign boats to these buoys because a falling tide MAY have the boat on the hard bottom. Because this is a designated mooring area, a shallow draft cruiser that COULD anchor in this space is denied anchoring as allowed by FS 370.04.
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: /?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
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
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
Well said and true. I am lucky enough to own a home on a canal in Key Largo. I purchased this home so that I could sail whenever I wanted. As a resident, taxpayer and boater I think we are lucky to have such a vibrant live aboard community. I frequently stay at different anchorages and 99% of boaters are respectful and kind. They are outgoing and would give you the shirt off their back. Let’s never treat them (me) as second class citizens in any way, shape or form. Jason McPeak, S/V TwoCan, Key Largo, FL
We have been asked, and will do so, to protect the author of the article below as a “confidential source.” All I will say is that the author is a fellow journalist, and her/his remarks deserve the most serious attention of both the cruising community and Florida governmental authorities. It’s sentiments like these that are driving people, particularly cruisers, away from the Sunshine State. All of us at the Salty Southeast Cruisers’ continue to be concerned about the reputation that Florida is garnering in the cruising community and beyond. I guess all that any of us can do is to keep fighting the good fight!
For several decades we have worked with the goal of retiring back to our native state of Florida. We have purchased a home in the Sarsota area with plans to move our boat there from the Chesapeake. We have read with some dismay about the mooring fields issue that seems to be pervading the state. But we were shocked to read about the “Lights Out” boarding by a cadre of federal,, state and local law enforcement officials invading the privacy of boaters in the Sarasota area, apparently under the pretense of “Homeland Security.” What gives them the right to invade someone’s home just because that home floats? Doesn’t the U.S. Constitution forbid entering someone’s private residence without a search warrant? Doesn’t a boat qualify as a private residence? After all, you sleep and eat there. Didn’t our founding fathers stake their lives and thousands of American military personnel die to fight against such government abuses? A police officer cannot stop a vehicle at random just because he or she feels like it. It seems that Florida politicans, and law enforcement agencies, are declaring a defacto war on people who cruise that state’s waterways. Perhaps this needs national attention to let Americans decide what’s really happening to the freedoms boaters once enjoyed. Name Withheld by Request
Many, many thanks to “Marine Electronic Installer,” Captain Bill Bishop, for allowing us to reproduce his wry, witty account of Florida anchorage regulations. This amusing, but serious, article originally appeared on Captain Bill’s Blog (linked below)!
“According to Longboat Key Police, there was a `Lights Out’ boarding of all the boats anchored between Cortez and the south end of Longboat Key recently. Seventeen boats were boarded by the Longboat Police, Bradenton Beach Police, the Coast Guard as well as the Florida Department of Environmental Protection officers and Florida Fish and Wildlife officers, all checking for drugs, outstanding warrants, proper licenses, and proper handling of sewage.” (Editors note: US Customs officers were also involved)
Apparently nothing of magnitude was found during the raid, at least that was noteworthy in police reports, or the press. How much fun would that have been for a transient cruiser passing through to have assorted armed law enforcement agencies rooting through your vessel in the middle of the night. Certainly this should give all of us food for thought, and it begs the point that many Florida communities are not boat friendly at all, and NIMBY rules the waves.
I have seen enough people with easels up painting the scene above to know that some like the picturesque aspects of all the boats resting quietly at anchor, but there have been issues with a small group of live aboard, and quasi-live aboard vessels like the vessel above. It is apparent to me that it doesn’t sail anywhere despite the casual appearance of the rigging, and there is no motor. This vessel is someone’s home, even as stark as it is, and this drives some locals crazy. You hear statements like they’re homeless people, they don’t pay taxes, the boats are ugly, and there polluting the bay. There is some truth to all of this, and this sort of thing causes varied levels of consternation in local, and mostly wealthier communities. Add to this issue some vessel that is a little south of being a multi-million dollar super yacht being anchored, and despoiling, at least in their mind, some residents magnificent waterfront view. “Look Buffy, that deplorable sail boat thing is ruining our view, call the anchoring police immediately.”
But what has really upset all of these water based communities is that the local governments have historically had little legal authority to limit non-live-aboard (cruisers) anchoring in their state controlled waters (live-aboard vessels are regulated), despite their efforts to create ordinances to do so, and it drives them nuts. The Town of Longboat Key attempted to do so with their Chapter 93. The ordinance basically says no to everything boating, but the section relating to anchoring has been shown to be in contravention with state law. I’m not specifically picking on Longboat Key, there are many other Florida municipalities that have tried to restrict anchoring by regulation, and Marco Island is another one.
The brunt of the State of Florida statutory boating regulations are in Chapter 327. There is the old version (pre 2009), and the new version (post 2009), and an additional twist to all of this. In 2009 the section 327.22 was deleted, and portions of it were consolidated into 327.60 titled Local regulations: limitations. What happened here was local governments limitations and regulatory abilities were more clearly spelled out. The notable part of this change was that the ability to anchor your boat, in state waters, which was somewhat fuzzy in the older version of the statutes, was more clearly spelled out. What had become limited, and clarified was local governments could not pass laws regarding the:
f) Regulating the anchoring of vessels other than live-aboard vessels outside the marked boundaries of mooring fields permitted as provided in s. 327.40
Now like all things legal, there was some nuance here, but on the whole, if you are a cruiser passing through Florida you can anchor where you want as long as it is not a specifically marked, and state permitted location, for now, but here comes the twist.
Let’s now meet Representative Baxter Troutman, from Florida. He is from Winter Haven in the middle of the state, was a Florida state representative (district 66) from 2002 to 2010, and was term-limited out of office. He is also the grandson of Ben Hill Griffin. Katherine Harris is also Ben Hill Griffin’s granddaughter. Representative Troutman is the sponsor of Florida Bill HB 1423 filed in March 2009, and it was co-sponsored by Representative Paige Kreegle (district 72) from Punta Gorda on Florida’s west coast.
Buried on page 76 of 89 pages of this bill is the start of the small section you see above, with the operative line being “to explore options for regulating the anchoring or mooring of non-live-aboard vessels”. The FWC (Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission) pilot program has selected five sites for inclusion consisting of the city of Sarasota, city of St Petersburg, city of Stuart/Martin county, Monroe county/Key West/Marathon, and St. Augustine. Inclusion in this pilot programs also gives the participants the ability to created non-live-aboard anchoring regulations in the area of their jurisdiction.
In Sarasota, the great mooring field project has not gone well. With some fanfare derelict, meaning homeless shelter boats were removed, and all of the other boats in the anchorage were pushed back from the construction area. Engineers surveyed, and pontificated, and called for helical “screw in” mooring anchors. A contractor was hired to install the first 38 anchors, and oops, the anchors didn’t hold. There was lots of finger pointing, and additional consultants were hired, and $500,000 dollars quickly evaporated. The city still has grant money left, and they will persevere. There will be a public meeting next week to discuss anchoring limitation regulations that are now possible, and I shudder. The one thing we have here is endless retired non-boaters with lots of time on their hands.
The bottom line is this legislated pilot program is a poor way to solve problems that were manageable with current laws and regulations. Pollution problems can be solved with pump out boats like the new one we have above, which will currently come to your boat, for no charge in the for now free anchorage, and solve your holding tank issues. The city initially had set mooring fees in excess of $400 per month, regardless of size, which would be hard to swallow for a boater with a 26′ day sailor. Tentative rates are now by vessel size and range from $250 to $345 per month, and transient fees range from $18 to $25 per day, and oh yes, you must have proof of insurance to use the mooring field. These fees do come with with good amenities.
Now that the door is cracked open, the city fathers, and mothers are chomping hard at the bit to get control of all of the anchoring in their jurisdiction, and they all lobbied hard for this. Thou shalt not anchor within view of homes, within 1000′ of the shoreline, no anchoring off Longboat Key period, and you can only stay one night, if you can find a legal place to anchor that is not in our mooring field. You don’t want to have a “Lights Out” visit from our local constabulary do you? This is a bad idea for all that boat and cruise, I trust these municipalities about as far as I can throw them, and I can’t pick them up. They are not boater’s friends. Keep a close eye on this issue, and participate in the local public meetings, or you will definitively end up holding the short straw.
Comments are listed below from fellow cruisers who have reacted to Captain Bill’s story!
Let’s keep the pressure up on FWC and these cities, we can win this. Pete
Well now, I wonder are the police etc going to raid all the foreclosed and abandoned homes ? Just imagine, all those bugs running free, toilets not flushed, stagnant water everywhere and maybe a homeless person living there WITHOUT PAYING ‘¦oh it has to stop’¦even the thought ruins my view across the Bay’¦ Dennis McMurtry
Gosh, I thought this was all solved bill 327.60 I’m really tired of all this crap the cities are trying to do. I am 74 years old and have seen all I want to see of the Govt interferring with my right to sail and anchor where I choose. If I’m no mistaken, the federal govt still controls the bottom, not the cities. They may have given some of their rights to the states, but certainly not the cities. Some kind of common horse sense need to be displayed. GeneWj
Bottom line on this article is avoid Longboat Key/Bradenton. When the municipal authorities note the reduced tourism traffic, then they can look around and ask, where have they all gone? Steve Kamp
As one who enjoys eating the seafood from local waters, I am appalled by the `Lights Out’ raids on boaters. While I agree that those who knowingly dump their duties in inland waters should be heavily fined, the reality is that amount of sewage coming from boaters is insignificant compared to what raw sewage municipalities often dump into our waterways. For Bradenton, to send their police after boaters is the ultimate Hypocrisy. Just google `raw sewage Bradenton’ and the first hit is `Bradenton sewage spill sent 3.5M gallons of waste into streets, river’ http://www.bradenton.com/2011/07/06/3327654/bradenton-sewage-break-sent-35m.html On page 35 of Southwinds’ October magazine is an article describing an August spill of 1.4 million gallons of raw sewage which occurred near Pensacola in an area that in June suffered from 2.2 million gallons a raw sewage spill. WOW!! That is like having nearly 7,000 boaters dump 10 gallons a raw sewage per week for an entire year! Paul
I am a Sailboat Charter Captain in Stuart,FL I went to the meeting and totaly disagree with their Anchoring restrictions. The waterways should be free to cruise for all after all those cruisers are tourists and spend money here I sail to the Bahamas every year and I feel welcome in all the anchorages. I go out to eat buy fuel etc. so whats their problem? Captain Wolf
I live in Marco Island and I support the right of boaters to anchor off the shore in front of my house while in transit, seeking shelter from inclement weather, or just plain enjoying our beautiful city. I enjoy the continuing change of scenery and observing different styles, designs and rigs of vessels visiting here. However, some inconsiderate boaters seem to enjoy gaming the system by taking up permanent residence, and creating a ‘˜boat slum’ in otherwise beautiful and convenient anchorages which should be a credit to the city and not an eyesore. Solving the problem of these freeloading, waste dumping, boatbums while accommodating the majority of the cruising community is a problem which will not be easily solved. The ultimate solution toward which we are all rushing will not be satisfactory for anyone. Bill
Oh yea, I would also like to add’¦ I know these folks (liveaboards). Yes they are poor. No, they are not `boaters’. Most work (at least part time). We did have two `crackheads’ who would steal anything not chained up/locked down, but they are gone. Now it’s mostly just people storing their boats’¦ they live ashore. Half a dozen or so liveaboards’¦ one or two `full time cruisers (it’s all semantics)’ Any lights out raid would have been aimed solely at harassing these folks. W.W.
Captain Bliss is a member of the St. Augustine, Florida Port Commission, and has been instrumental in protecting cruisers’ anchoring rights in St. Augustine. His well reasoned article below provides a good overview of this entire issue!
Florida’s Anchoring Pilot Program is underway. Each of five sites gets to establish local ordinances, rules, for that particular site, enforceable until July 2014. For the cruiser heading South, it will mean abiding by local rules in St. Augustine City Limits; State rules then pertain until he reaches Martin County and the City of Stuart. Upon leaving Stuart/Martin county he’s back to State rules down through Ft. Lauderdale and Miami (or he traverses the Okeechobee to the West coast under Stuart/Martin rules), until he enters Monroe County at Key Largo, whereupon he’s under Monroe rules all the way to the Dry Tortugas. Over on the West Coast, cities St. Petersburg and Sarasota get to establish their own rules. The stated purpose of this abundance of rules is to encourage the establishment of additional public mooring fields and to promote the use of existing ones. If everyone uses a public mooring field the goals of the pilot program–protect environment, enhance safety, deter derelicts, etc.– are readily achieved. The big picture: mooring fields provide safety (we hope), sanitation, convenience, prime location. Their prime location comes from taking free anchoring sites, part of our Navigational Servitude and waters of the Public of the United States, and improving for paying patrons. Boaters with less (or no) ability to pay are ruled elsewhere. The present result is the exact opposite of the goals of the Pilot Program: anchoring sprawl that adversely affects maritime environment, leads to improperly stored boats, and invites chaos. In that them vs. us mode, we get enforcement efforts that can readily escalate the ill will. Mooring field permits, mooring field operations, should all be asked to account for the boats they displace. That account must provide for accommodation of the displaced. Cities, Counties, should not be asked to create further rules that wash elements of the boating into other jurisdictions. Governments must be required to absorb the less able, the less fortunate, into the mooring field system. There lies the challenge: incentive rules for free admission, reduced admission fees into PUBLIC mooring fields. The Anchoring Pilot Program needs a paradigm shift. Jay Bliss USCG Lic. Capt. St.Augustine Port Commissioner Seat 5
Is it possible to get a list of the mooring fields in Florida? Fred Rogerson
Captain Ken DeLacy is a fellow live-aboard cruiser who has been working very had for several years in concert with other Sarasota boaters to bring about sensible mooring field/anchorage regulations which both preserve the rights of cruisers to anchor, yet address the problem of derelicts and “live aboard hulks.” In our collective opinion, his idea, outlined below, for Sarasota “Anchoring Permits” goes a long way towards solving these twin concerns. In a nutshell, as you will read, there is no time limit set for anchoring in Sarasota waters, as long as the vessel in question can pass a simple USCG Safety Inspection. This one simple act, will quickly cut out the derelicts and “live aboard hulks.” We believe this is an idea WELL WORTHY OF CAREFUL CONSIDERATION!
Cruising News: Being a resident in Sarasota, one of the Pilot Program sites, and a concerned cruiser I made the drive down to Key Largo last Tuesday to attend the Public Workshop meeting. While I noticed about 40 cruisers in attendence only about 5 spoke. I did pitch the idea of Anchroing Permits as an alternitive to buffer zones and time limits to sort of test the waters. Some positive feed back was received by 2 cruisers, 1 condo resident who previously spoke supporting more mooring fields, and the FWC. We are looking for further thoughts on the idea and so I thought I’d paste it below. Thanks for any input and a special thank you to Claiborne and this network. Ken DeLacy
Sarasota Anchoring Permit – draft 2 The City of Sarasota will issue 90 day and Annual anchoring permits to all vessel owners who meet the following requirements. (90 day for cruisers and Annual Permits for cruisers/locals) 1. a. Vessel shall obtain a USCG Aux. Vessel Safety Check (VSC) and receive either a “Yes” or “N/A” in order to receive the VSC decal. (Inspects Marine Sanitation Device, life jackets, fire extinguishers, navigation lights, etc.) b. Vessel shall also be required to receive a “Yes” for Items I – VI under “Recommended and Discussion Items” of the VSC. (Inspects anchors and line, bilge pump, marine radio, 1st aide kit, etc.) c. Vessel shall be required to navigate under it’s own power to a USCG facility, or other location which still demonstrates vessel’s ability to navigate, for VSC inspection. (USCG Aux. has assured willingness and ability to perform inspections at their dock at Centennial Park. They are volunteers – no cost to City.) d. Vessel shall display an up to date decal at all times. (Issued by USCG Aux. upon a passing inspection) 2. All anchoring permit holders will be required to use pump-out services. (The VSC will require a functioning Marine Sanitation Device. The City pump-out boat which is currently servicing anchored vessels will report non compliant vessels to Marine Police.) 3. Annual anchoring permit holders will be required to have a licensed diver inspect their anchoring system once their boat is anchored. The permit holder will be responsible for all these associated costs, and the diver must check off the following requirements. (Keeps costs away from City and placed upon the Anchoring Permit holder.) a. Vessel in location not adversely effecting seagrass, navigation, or another anchored vessel. b. Appropriate type and size line / chain used with no obvious defects. c. Appropriate amount of scope deployed. d. Anti chafe gear in place and in good condition. e. (1). Two anchor system set approx. 180 degrees apart. (2). Three anchor system set approx. 120 degrees part. (3). Four anchor system set approx. 90 degrees apart. (4). One anchor system not permitted. 4. Applicant responsible for presenting VSC and Diver Inspection to Marine Police in order to receive the Anchoring Permit. Failure to do so within 30 days of arrival may result in violation of City Ordinance 07-4711(x)(x)(x).
Shouldn’t short-term anchoring be permitted for at least a week without requiring a permit? Or will adequate moorings be available for rent? Last I heard, work had been stopped on expanding the very small mooring field. Will White
The mistake I see in all of this is buying into their argument that a problem exists. The Sarasota proposal does that on steroids. bosunj
What isn’t clear is what does this mean to someone who might want to anchor for a week. To go through all this rigamarole and expense for a short stay is a non-starter for us. The rules for clearing in and out of Cuba are simpler. Chris
This could be the way to go as it will help with the derelict vessel problem but needs a little tweaking. the diver inspection would be a problem because if no diver corps have the right permitting they just will not offer the services which will make all the rest obsolete. there should be no third party involved but city and state otherwise there will be price gouging and corruption and we have all had enough of that Dave C.
Terrible idea! You might as well just outlaw anchoring. Why should those who wish to anchor have to submit to this sort of drastic limit on their freedom? I for one consider having to fill out forms and taking tests to be totally against the spirit, and for that matter, established law of anchoring. It would absolutely guarantee I won’t visit Sarasota by water. I wouldn’t want to waste the time and money. This is a very slippery slope. Once one town gets a law like this on the books, the others with mooring fields will institute similar laws, but with different requirements. Before long we will have to register and submit forms, and of course pay fees to administer and enforce all this, to anchor anywhere. Other problems: a USCG auxiliary inspection requires equipment above what is required by law’“unenforceable, and I suspect someone could have the ticket thrown out of court for this reason. Many of us don’t use holding tanks and don’t require pumpouts’“I have a composting system. Having a licensed diver inspect your anchor = $$. Having someone else determine how I should be anchored is something I will not submit to. I have anchored thousands of times and I know how to anchor. This is obviously just a way to make it so much hassle that it will drive the anchorers away. John Kettlewell
You HAVE to be kidding! We just spent 10 days anchored off Island Park in Sarasota. The bum boats are mostly gone already, lots of anchoring room, police towed two remaining abandoned boats away while we were there. We really enjoyed our stay, spent lots of money in their stores downtown, restaurants, etc. If this `anchoring permit’ idea goes into effect we will NEVER again stop in Sarasota!!! I would not be willing to waste my time going into an inspection station even though my vessel meets all of the requirements just so I could anchor for a short time in Sarasota. This `anchor permit’ will deter all cruisers who just want to spend a few days enjoying Sarasota from ever stopping there again. BAD idea, might as well just ban all anchoring in Sarasota waters. I would rather deal with a time limit (even a short one) than to submit to all this bureaucratic nonsense!! Larry Sherman
Cruisers who want to anchor for less than 90 days don’t and shouldn’t need a permit to limit their freedom to do so. Non-cruisers, local residents or NOT, who want to STORE their boats at anchor for more than 90 days should be subject to oversight to protect the other cruisers using adjacent waterways from becoming victims of their neglect. An anchoring permit is a reasonable solution if you cannot STORE your boat on land. If the permit is a device to get derilect boats removed from sight, it will fail because you can comply with all the requirements of the permit and still have an unsightly boat. David Burnham
Not sure why a two anchor system is preferred over a single good anchor. Two anchors will lead to different swing patterns and will not increase holding as the weakest link in the chain is still the worst anchor. For the transient cruiser it is a major hassle to deal with the `multi’ anchor folks. Stop increasing regulations and start enforcing the existing rules. Most derelicts do not have current registration or sanitation devices. Enough to violate existing regulations. S/V Endeavor
I personally think USCG Aux. Vessel Safety Checks are a great idea, and we do one every year as a routine, ongoing safety program. I can support that idea in principle, and I ass/u/me it would also include the equivalent check from the US Power Squadron. One issues is that the stickers are based on a calendar year and expire in December. There needs to be a grace period recognizing that the program is an annual calendar-based program. I also agree with the idea that there needs to be a short term exclusion. It *is not* reasonable to require a permit for short stays; perhaps less than 14 days. One poster does raise an interesting point. What happens if one anchors in violation of a permit? Penalty? Fine? I wonder if a permit violation based on requirements that exceed state law and CG regulations would be enforceable? That criteria would just waste everyone’s time and energy, generate enormous dissatisfaction and resentment, and seems like it would be contrary to the spirit test. Finally, I agree that any ordinance needs to have a clearly defined statement of purpose and objective. If Sarasota’s is about derelict boats and derelict boats are not a problem, then there should be no ordinance. Jim Healy, aboard Sanctuary Monk 36 hull 132
Not sure why a two anchor system is preferred over a single good anchor. Two anchors will lead to different swing patterns and will not increase holding as the weakest link in the chain is still the worst anchor. For the transient cruiser it is a major hassle to deal with the `multi’ anchor folks. Stop increasing regulations and start enforcing the existing rules. Most derelicts do not have current registration or sanitation devices. Enough to violate existing regulations. S/V Endeavor
I too do not agree with over regulation. Particulerly when one of the city of Sarasotas complaints is the cost of enforcing current laws. However Ken’s proposal is much more cruiser frindly then plans that state no longer then 72 hours on anchor in city waters. That require the use of the proposed Marina Jacks managed mooring field after 72 hours. The city has been chosen as a state pilot program site. There will be regulations put in place. I would perfer the people pushing the mooring field not write them. To add to all of this the city claims that after there last mooring field failure. They are to invested to permenently abandon the plan. At the same time they will not rent showers, laundry facilitys, WiFi, or parking passes to cruisers or resident boat owners. Opening these services to boaters (not on Marina Jack’s docks) who can prove they have a safe navigable vessel. Could recover there loss with out adding to there debt. Aswell as bringing in more of the cruisers who would pay for those on shore luxuries. On the anchoring topic I do not care how you anchor. Just dont hit me and dont swing in that horried 200 ft 1 anchor ark. However when you pull up a ball of lovely Sarasota bay muck. Dont cry when you hit the beach or worse yet me. Bryan Makepeace S/V Albatross
Be the first to comment!