We have previously published several strings of messages about the Florida Pilot Mooring Field program. Some hate it, some like it, and some are not sure exactly what to think, and just want additional information. Below is a series of messages which recently appeared on the T&T (Trawlers and Trawlering) mailing list. As you will see, again, there is a wide range of opinions.
Note that some of these contributors are referring to the FWC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission) report on Florida Mooring Fields, which was recently published, and about which we will have more to say editorially soon!

Looks like the data isn’t encouraging. I think more “inconclusive” than “poor;” perhaps, “leaning” negative. I am no fan of this program. It’s totally unnecessary.
To me, the most interesting data is the survey data starting on page 157 of the report. If you look at the respondents, 67% are property owners, and 34% are waterfront property owners. Only 13% were cruisers.
I think that clearly reflects the audience this program was intended to mollify. And it looks like behavior hasn’t changed, either, with one exception. The city at St. Augustine were only half full when I came past in early December. The mooring field
wasn’t full, but it was being used. Cruisers like me seem to be skipping the pilot cities. I do.
You probably know, there is a boater in St. Augustine that has taken that pilot ordinance to federal court. The city cited the boater, he pled “not guilty” in city and state court, and lost both times. The city waived his fine in a shabby legal trick intended to prevent him access to federal court. With no fine, he could not show that he’d been “injured” by the ordinance. If he isn’t
“injured,” then he doesn’t have “standing” to bring his suit to federal court.
I’ll wager he’ll win in admiralty court; these ordinances do infringe navigation rights in riparian areas of Florida waterways.
Jim
Peg and Jim Healy aboard Sanctuary

We too, like Jim, avoid these municipalities that have put in moorings. Although it isn’t much, the $100-$200, or more, that we don’t spend there goes to another town who is more welcoming. It would appear to me that Jim and I aren’t the only ones doing this either.
To me a better approach, since the argument seems to mostly center around the cost to get rid of the sunken and abandoned boats is not to force a mooring field on them, but to, instead, institute a mandatory financial requirement for any boat in any location for more than X number of days, to prove that they can cover the removal of the boat.
Right now, as I understand it, in Florida, the owner or last user of an abandoned boat is responsible for the cost of its removal, but getting the money out of them is another issue. So, even though I’d not like it, I’m in more favor of prove of financial wherewithall, rather than state sponsored mooring fields.
Rudy and Jill

We enjoy anchoring out and saving $. But IMHO, mooring fields are a good middle ground solution to an ugly problem. Let’s face it – over the years many anchorages have become little more than substandard housing. It’s hard to blame waterfront property owners when their view becomes a floating slum.
Cities face a huge dilemma when they have to deal with derelict and abandoned boats. Drag the hulks off to the landfill where they are cut up and left to deteriorate for years or centuries. Who pays for this? Then there is an additional layer of complexity when the boat is titled or documented. It is my understanding that court or some other kind of legal action required so the boat can be condemned and removed and destroyed. That is a costly process. Who pays for this?
Environmentally, they can be a real mess. Boot Key Harbor in Marathon was nearly an open sewer. But with the mooring field came free pump outs. Before then, if you fell into the harbor you would have been well advised to head over to the hospital for a course of antibiotics and a tetanus shot. 260 moorings later, the situation is hugely improved.
My knee-jerk reaction to cities imposing anchoring bans is that a bunch of rich folks bought waterfront and now don’t want to look at boats?! I didn’t understand this until I understood the issues that the municipalities faced.
I’m going to climb down from my soapbox now and look for my asbestos underwear.
Regards,
Randy Pickelmann
Morning Star

Randy I must agree with you. The derelict boats are like a cancer that grows out of control. I greatly enjoy anchoring out but also have been witness to dumping raw sewerage overboard in coves that hardly flush. The burden of enforcement and removal of theses “free” spirits that don’t pay their way, and consider the boat just another overpass to camp under and trash is real revenue hog for communities. Moorings with cheap rates can actually benefit the municipality and the cruiser with amenities mentioned e.g. pump out boat service, water taxi etc. If they are not New England priced, can be beneficial to us and the community. Vero Beach,
Fernandina, etc..
Joe Pica
Carolyn Ann

Our county (Bay) had a pretty large problem after hurricane Opal in 1995, and I can imagine that other coastal counties have had similar problems from time to time. In our case, there was a converted wooden-hulled minesweeper (a very large vessel compared to what we are generally speaking of here) which washed up on the shore of a local bayou. This was not a remote bayou, but rather one close to downtown and inhabited for 100% of its shoreline. The vessel had been more or less abandoned at its anchorage, and ownership
was just about impossible to track. I think an owner was eventually tracked to Hawaii, but he was uncooperative. This huge piece of trash obstructed the skyline for years before the county finally got some taxpayer money from the state to remove it.
When I moved to the bayou I now live on in 2000, there was a group of about seven mostly derelict fishing/shrimping boats moored to a couple of “pirate” pilings on the opposite shore (150 yards away) where a public road happened to end at the shoreline. We took it as more or less part of the neighborhood, but whenever the owner of the lone boat that could actually get underway was out of jail, he would turn on the large air-cooled generator mounted on top of the pilothouse along with some very intense lights and often just sit there all night (room darkening drapes were obtained and helped with the light but not the noise). After a while, the junkiest of the boats started to sink one by one, and we would enjoy watching the Coast Guard waste your money in an effort to refloat them. All of this was much more disturbing to the guy who lived right next to this circus than to us.
Eventually, the closest landowner got tired of trying to get anything done through the county commission, which claimed their authority stopped at the water’s edge – the state owns the bottom. The local Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC-former Florida Marine Patrol) officer who lives on the water on our bayou was also powerless to force the issue with these derelicts in any way. The fellow closest to the junk pile had a few altercations with the scofflaws over the years and blamed them for the killing of his pet which was left shot in the middle of his driveway. Eventually, he convinced a few of us to go with him to visit with the county sheriff. I listened as he and another neighbor on that side of the bayou presented their case.
The sheriff, finally took the bull by the horns and paced a locked gate in place across the road near the water and made it known that it would be unlocked only after the illegal rickety pier was removed from county land and the boats were moved 50 feet off shore. These conditions were quickly acceded to by the various scofflaw owners; the gate was opened; and we began seeing a Jon-boat, which was launched from a local official boat ramp, motoring up to the wrecks for regular bilge pump battery replacement of the
largest of the boats.
About seven years after we moved here, the wrecks were either cut up and disposed of or moved around to another arm of the bayou where today they rest on the bottom, well off the shoreline and will continue to be eyesores there forever. This morning we enjoy a gorgeous view across the bayou with its mill pond stillness and trees (only two houses can be seen) and blue sky reflected from the surface. My poor neighbors around the corner must put up with the permanent eyesores there.
Would I mind it if somebody anchored a boat off my land? Certainly not, for a short term – I’d probably row out and visit and possibly invite them to one of my two spare slips. Luckily I do not have to worry about the issue as the water off my shoreline (except in my slips) is too shallow except for the marked channel which passes just off the nose of Calypso.
When we headed for the keys in 2009 and 2013, we enjoyed anchoring several times in a vey upscale neighborhood in the Naples area, just a short distance in from the Gulf. Multi-million dollar mansions sat cheek by jowl around the basin at the end of the dug and dredged canal we anchored in. We showed up in the afternoon and departed early the next mooring and did not run a generator into the night – luckily, the weather allowed sleep without AC. I have little doubt the very rich landowners would have had us booted out had we made a lot of noise or remained for a lengthy stay; so we tried to make little impact and not spoil this excellent anchorage for others and ourselves. I don’t think a couple of well maintained Grand Banks nested together in the basin were messing with anybody’s view, but dumping and noise would have.
So I think Joel’s comment (“And it is just too D..m bad if those precious waterfront owners think boats anchored offshore are messing up their view.”) has to be taken in context. Joel’s boat, properly managed for disturbing behavior, is probably not going to bother anybody. However, junk/derelict boats are a visual nuisance as well as sometimes an audio nuisance as well, and probably a goodly percentage (NOT ALL) of the people taking advantage of the inability of authorities to take legal action are probably people you
would not want to know.
Rich Gano
Calypso

In discussing this topic with home owners, the part that seems to anger them most are boaters that hang out for extended periods (homesteading) and are often inconsiderate with their noise.
Generators, whether wind, gas or diesel that can be heard away from the boat, barking dogs, music that can be heard off the boat and other annoyances are the often most mentioned items.
I can’t blame them as we too have the same complaints, only we are usually closer to these annoying things. It must be remembered that noise should not be compared to a louder noise, but instead, to a level of quit that is desired by most.
Rudy and Jill
Cape Coral, Fl

I won’t be posting again on this for fear it becomes one of those “beat that dead horse” subjects.
I absolutely AGREE that municipalities all across the WORLD have the problem of derelict boats. I completely DISAGREE that the Florida Pilot Program in any way makes our local situation better. Here’s my analysis:
1. All of the laws needed to manage the problem of deteriorating and derelict boats already exist in Florida and amongst Florida municipalities. Yes, it is correct that the way things are today, municipalities must deal with large removal and disposal expenses. That’s largely their own fault. By failing to address the problem early in its evolution, municipal expenses often become far larger than they need to be. The problem of confiscating a Title (whether car, boat or aircraft, whether Federal COD or State-issued) remains in any case. We all know homes can be confiscated (by imminent domaine) for failure of the owner to maintain (revocation of a Certificate of Occupancy, for example). Similar laws allow for confiscation of personal property titles.
2. All of the municipalities of the Florida pilot program already have local, county and state police authority presences on their local waterways. Long before boats approach “derelict” status, local waterway police and DEP authorities know that individual anchored boats are in the process of becoming a nuisance – or a future derelict – problem. There are already a plethora of local, county and state laws (public health, code, vehicle registration, public nuisance, etc) that give those local police and municipalities the authority to act. However, they choose to ignore the developing problem in hopes of avoiding *current* enforcement costs but ignoring long term removal and disposal liability. Same thing they do with public employee pension liability! I know;
you’re shocked!
3. My life experience suggests that municipalities are often reluctant to use the tools they already have. They don’t act. They don’t want to act. They always have competing requirements for taxpayer money, and the fact is, derelict boats in offshore anchorages are not a high priority UNLESS WEALTHY WATERFRONT LANDOWNERS SAY IT IS. (In that sentence, “wealthy waterfront landowners” includes marina and boat yard operators with a financial incentive to limit and curtail anchoring.) Municipalities find reasons to defer action (West Palm Beach, Flagler Bridge) unless and until WEALTHY LANDOWNERS DEMAND IT. They’ll gladly argue that their authority stops at the waters edge, Rich, yet there are innumerable municipal building codes for docks, floats, drains, pipelines, overhead utilities, Manatee Zones, speed limits, signage, fishing seasons and bag limits, licensing requirements, and other waterway controls enforced by municipal, county and state police authorities. I conclude that municipalities defer action until that action is tremendously expensive and tremendously difficult, leading to all of the problems y’all have pointed out.
3a. And then there’s the back and forth finger-pointing between municipality, county and state over WHICH ONE will pay the bills which leads to further delay and greater expense! I know, you’re shocked again!
4. If the Florida Pilot Program were targeted to, and ONLY affected, the vessels of IRRESPONSIBLE owner/operators, I’d be fully in support of it. But, the program as is infringes the rights of *all* waterway users; ALL OF US, with a broad brush; all of us, the irresponsible AND THE RESPONSIBLE. And because of the sheer numbers, that boils down to affecting mostly those who are *responsible;* the vast majority of us. I am definitely up for having municipalities handle their local problems resulting from the irresponsible
behavior of local individuals. I am up for municipalities handling deteriorating boats *before* they become derelict, and before their irresponsible owners disappear “into the wind.” I am up for municipalities condemning deteriorating and derelict boats, including those progressing towards becoming derelict. I simply think they should do that with the targeted tools they already have at their disposal, and not with overly broad tools that mostly infringe the rights of innocent, responsible bystanders.
5. I remind y’all of the case of “City of Marco Island v. Dave Dumas.” In it, the city adopted broadly restrictive anchoring prohibitions at the behest of WEALTHY WATERFRONT LANDOWNERS. The city cited Dave for being in violation. He defended himself against that citation with pro bono legal assistance. He lost in city court, but later won in County court, and again when the city appealed
in State court. That is analogous to what is happening with the sailor in St. Augustine, at this time, on the Florida Pilot Program issue.
6. So I conclude, the Florida Pilot Program is about mollifying wealthy waterfront landowners, and not about managing the problems stated to be the goals of the program. I conclude the Florida Pilot Program infringes my rights. I conclude the Florida Pilot Program infringes your rights. I was one of the 13% or cruisers that responded to FWC’s survey. I can’t imagine why that number
wasn’t larger. I support the Federal Appeal by Capt. Michael `Wolfy’ MacDougall, of St. Augustine, (http://staugustine.com/news/local-news/2013-12-15/st-augustines-anchoring-and-mooring-pilot-program-tested#.UrB0Jyf7v2B) as being in the best interests of, and good for, all of us.
My net: The Supremes have said over and over that jurisdictions must use minimum restraint – just that minimally necessary – to address a problem. In that spirit, I support Florida finding a more targeted way than this “sledge hammer” to manage the actual problem they state as their program’s goals.
Jim
Peg and Jim Healy aboard Sanctuary

Jim,
I think you summed things up very nice, FWIW. I might add – this is clearly not a Florida Only concern. Even in our limited travels on the West Coast and into Canada we can see increasing number of boats being used for live aboard, be it choice, or more often lack of choice…
I would also add: Most all of the ‘solutions’ are simply “get it out of my yard”. Using often trumpeted up reasons and justification, the end effect is to simply push the masses to a new location – perhaps one that has not yet seem much land development. I do know there are a few programs out there which target getting high risk boats off the water – doing so before
they become a real problem. But those take work, and they in no way look a program of simply adding a mooring field to local anchorages.
-al-
Viking Star

This issue is a double edged sword of the worst kind.
I enjoy the freedom of being able to drop anchor pretty much anywhere as much as the next guy, however arriving at an anchorage to find it full of sunken and sinking derelicts is why we often have to anchor in locations that are less than ideal.
I think the municipalities are justified in wanting to resolve this issue, however this does not justify the use of heavy handed tactics like boarding transient boats in the middle of the night for `Safety Inspections’. Consider the case of Sarasota, who took half of the anchorage and use the mooring revenues to provide free pumpout services for the rest as well (the whole privatization issue is something else all together). The last time I was in Sarasota, there were two sunken boats in the anchorage. Clearly this attempt at a compromise solution did not work.
I think Walt Kelly said it best `We have met the enemy, and he is us’. If we as boaters do not come up with a workable solution to this problem, it will be resolved for us and you can bet we will not like the solution.
Perhaps we should support time limits in anchorages; after all, if you had to move your boat for one week out of five it would at least demonstrate that the boat was capable of movement.
At any rate, if we cannot become unified on a solution, we will fail.
Cambren and Dede on Serenity

I have written this many times before: we don’t make everyone pay to sit on benches in public parks because a few derelicts sleep on them. Some municipalities have identified a problem that they want to get rid of’“derelict boats’“and they have come up with a solution that does some good to eliminate a few derelicts, but also impacts every legitimate transient boater passing through. Personally, I will stay away from most harbors that don’t have room to anchor. To me that is a fun and essential part of boating when I am traveling. It’s like telling sailors they can’t sail! I like anchoring, I want to anchor, and I prefer it. Paying for a mooring to me is like being forced to pay for a hotel room when I planned on camping out. Now I know others feel differently and like the moorings, so I think there needs to be a compromise that says you can only pave over so much area in a harbor and must leave a certain percentage open for anchoring, and then maybe you set a time limit of at least 30 days on anchoring. Instead of expensive and maintenance-intensive mooring fields, why not just set a time-limit on transient anchoring?
John Kettlewell

Dear Mr. Young,
One important issue missing in the FWC discussions on municipal mooring fields is the lack of responsibility by the municipality. Apparently they all put any responsibility for damages on the boater. If their rusty chain
breaks and my boat crashes into other boats, I am responsible! That is WRONG. If I am required to use their mooring, the municipality MUST be responsible for maintenance of their equipment.
Has Royer s/v Skye

Has: Unfortunately these Florida mooring fields make you sign multi-page documents that make you liable for everything and the city liable for nothing. Check with your own insurance carrier before signing such a document, as it might negate your own insurance coverage according to Boat/US. By the way, I have observed moorings being created in a popular harbor utilising practices that would not normally be acceptable for permanent moorings other places. And, I have observed vessels on moorings in bad weather that were far larger than the mooring gear was designed for. No matter how good the equipment in the first place, you have no idea how well it has been maintained or any damage it has sustained. It is all hidden below the surface.
John Kettlewell