Visit Logged
  •  Chart View
    • At Current Location
    • At Selected Location
    • Enter A Location
    • Enter Latitude and Longitude
  •  Fuel Prices
    • Lowest Diesel Prices Anywhere
    • Lowest Gas Prices Anywhere
    • Virgina to North Carolina
    • North Carolina
    • South Carolina
    • Georgia
    • Eastern Florida
    • St. Johns River
    • Florida Keys
    • Okeechobee Waterway
    • Western Florida
  • Select Region
    • All Regions
    • VA to NC Line
    • North Carolina
    • South Carolina
    • Georgia
    • Eastern Florida
    • Western Florida
    • Florida Keys
    • Okeechobee Waterway
    • Northern Gulf
    • Bahamas
    • New York
    • Ohio
    • Pennsylvania
    • Washington
    • Puerto Rico
    • Minnesota
    • Maryland
    • Tennessee
    Order by:
    • Feb 14, 2020by:   Larry Dorminy No Comments

      Annual St. Patrick’s Day Celebration, Fishermen’s Village, Charlotte Harbor, Punta Gorda, FL

      Fisherman's Village Marina and Resort, Punta Gorda, FL

      There is always plenty to do around Charlotte Harbor, especially during early Spring. When you are berthed at Fishermen’s Village Marina, A CRUISERS NET SPONSOR, you will enjoy your visit to beautiful Charlotte Harbor.

      FISHERMEN’S VILLAGE TO HOST ANNUAL ST. PATRICK’S DAY CELEBRATION

      Punta Gorda, FL—Fishermen’s Village will play host to a St. Patrick’s Day Celebration, Tuesday,
      March 17, 2020 with festivities beginning at 12 noon and continuing until 9 pm. The event is free and the public is encouraged to attend.  

      • Singer Paul Cottrell 12 Noon-4 pm Center Court
      • Singer Jim Garee 1-5 pm near Good ‘Ole Days Coffee
      • Vladimir Gordokin performing on the Tsimbaly, 12 noon-4 pm, third section
      • Kellyn Celtic Arts will present a Traditional Irish Step performance from 2-2:30 pm, Center Court
      • Lee County Pipes & Drums Parade/Performance 5:30-6:00 pm Center Court
      • Traditional Irish Music Show by Mark Fitzpatrick and Eddie Dillon 5-9 pm Center Court

      Originally from Boston, Eddie Dillon is a multi-instrumentalist – guitar, mandolin, banjo & bass
      blended with a little Irish wit!   Singer/Songwriter Mark Fitzpatrick has toured with Ireland’s famous folk singers, The Clancy Brothers.

      Village Restaurants will feature Irish food specials (call for details/reservations)

      Fishermen’s Village is located off Marion Avenue, Punta Gorda, FL.   941 639-8721 www.fishville.com. 

                                                                                        
      Kathy Burnam
      Marketing/Events Manager
      Fishermen’s Village
      mkting@fishville.com

      1200 W. Retta Esplanade #57A
      Punta Gorda, Florida  33950                                                                                                                                        

      P  941 575-3007
      M 941 258-1327
      F   941 637-1054
        

      Click Here To View the Cruisers Net Western Florida Marina Directory Listing For Fishermen’s Village

      Click Here To Open A Chart View Window, Zoomed To the Location of Fishermen’s Village

      Be the first to comment!

    • Feb 14, 2020by:   Larry Dorminy 1 Comment

      Claiborne Young on Florida Anchoring Regulations and Anchoring Rights

      A voice from the past, Claiborne Young, founder of Cruisers Net, posted this 2010 editorial regarding Florida anchoring regulations and thus joined the battle between state bureaucrats and cruisers over restrictions on anchoring rights.  To read the entire posting and the resulting comments from fellow cruisers, see Salty Southeast Cruisers’ Net Anchoring Rights Editorial Reprise. For more from Claiborne on anchoring rights, see Florida Anchoring Rights/Regulations.

      A Salty Southeast Cruisers’ Net Editorial by Claiborne S. Young

      Almost everywhere I go, one question keeps popping up time after time; some variation of, `Claiborne, where are all these Florida anchorage regulations coming from?’ Well, I am going to attempt to answer that question within this article/editorial, AND why I think most of these proposed prohibitions are unnecessary and probably harmful.

      First, let’s dispose of two less than savory reasons why Floridian anchorage regulations have made an appearance, stretching all the way back to the early 1990’s.

      1. Local and county governmental officials see anchorage regulations as a way to expand their department’s authority, or, in bureaucrat-ese,  “expand their turf.”

      2. There are a group of very wealthy Floridians, who, by virtue of their finances, have more than their fair share of political influence. And, they simply do not want to walk out in their backyards, and see anchored boats on the water. I once heard one property owner of this ilk testify that whenever he was on the water, he ALWAYS saw cruising craft dumping untreated sewage and trash overboard. Talk about a bald faced lie if I ever heard one!

      Those favoring anchorage regulation for one of the above two reasons are beneath my contempt, and that of the entire cruising community. Haven’t we had enough of self-serving government officials and overreaching, wealthy property owners? Enough said!

      Then, there are concerns about `noise pollution’ and trespassing. Who among us has not dropped the hook in some quiet corner of the world, only to have another vessel show up across the way, and proceed to play loud music into the small hours. Not a fun night.

      I, myself, have watched, on rare occasions, as less than sanguine cruisers pull their dinghies onto someone’s back yard, and then gaily go off to the grocery store, as if it was their right to land the dink wherever they pleased. No wonder some waterside property owners have erected large `No Trespassing’ signs.

      In populated regions, noise pollution and trespassing are real problems. However, I have a very simple solution for these two anchorage concerns.

      There are already trespassing and `disturbing the peace’/noise pollution laws on the books of virtually every municipality and county in America. One local water cop enforcing these regulations should solve the problem nicely.

      And, that brings us to the issue which I think is front and center in what I will term as the `honest’ attempts to regulate anchorage (as opposed to the `dishonest’ #1 and #2 reasons listed above). Can you guess what this issue might be?

      I won’t keep you in suspense. Abandoned vessels and what I will term, live-aboard `hulks,’ are, without any question in my tiny mind, the #1 threat to anchoring rights throughout Florida for the rest of us. We’ve all seen vessels at anchor which have been sitting in the same spot for months on end, without anyone being aboard. And then, most of us have also gazed in wonder at `boats’ which look as if they are going to sink any moment, and then we see someone come on deck. Have you, like me, asked yourself, `Does someone actually live on that thing?’

      Abandoned vessels and live-aboard hulks are safety and health risks, not to mention being more than a little bit unsightly. They often break free during bad weather, and impact other vessels or private property. And, as to the untreated waste being dumped overboard from the hulks, best not to think too closely on that topic.

      Think this isn’t a serious issue? Consider the two e-mails below which I received shortly after publishing my last `Anchorage Rights/Regulations Analysis:’

      Dear Claiborne,
      Thanks for the update and more than that, the great service you provide boaters. On the subject of anchoring rights however, I feel you and others in the cruising community need to take a more balanced stand.
      I live near Sarasota so see almost on a daily basis the derelict or near-derelict boats moored off the city waterfront. They are ugly, dangerous – occasionally coming adrift in bad weather – and in many cases unoccupied. For those that live aboard I suspect the concept of a pump out is totally alien. Then try anchoring overnight in the Boca Grande basin. My wife and I were there a couple of months ago and, contrary to your 2006 article it seemed virtually all occupied by “long term” cruisers ( I use the term charitably), many in dilapidated condition. Again, I wonder about frequency of pump out for some of these boats.
      Most of us are responsible cruisers, for whom a limitation of several days, perhaps a week, in one location is not a large imposition. I feel we would be better served by meeting local communities half way and working towards a compromise that retains the ability of the cruising majority to cruise, while dealing with the minority that give all of us a bad name.
      Peter Morris

      Or, this one:

      Hi Claiborne,
      I am an advocate for anchoring rights. But I have to point out that many places in California have had severe restrictions on anchoring for some time. Long Beach Harbor used to allow overnight anchoring behind some oil platforms but that “right” was taken away a number of years ago. Marina Del Rey, Redando Beach, and San Pedro have no anchoring. Newport Beach has a small restricted area, but you are not allowed to leave the boat unattended. Dana Point also has this restriction. San Diego has restricted anchorages, and most require a permit to use. Even Catalina Island has defacto lack of anchorages, by the massive mooring fields and harbor masters who will not allow anchoring in many parts of the harbors–so that at the Isthmus and Avalon, you have to anchor in more than 100 feet, and often in areas of poor holding and subject to weather.
      I did discuss the anchoring situation with our local marine resource officer in Pensacola, and there is no plan for restriction, as long as the vessel is outside of the navigable channel. I asked about the mooring field, and was told that the stipulations put on this were so great by the state that they would not be practical economically–I tend to agree. I do believe it is more for control, than to provide a service or help the mariner.

      0 Facebook Likes, 1 Facebook Reactions

      Comments from Cruisers (1)

      1. Ted Arisaka -  February 14, 2020 - 12:02 pm

        Thanks Cruisers Net for publishing Mr Young’s editorial from a few years ago about Florida Anchoring Regulations. His comments are as relevant today as they were then. I have shared with Save Georgia’s Anchorages and will share further.
        Regards,
        Ted

        Reply to Ted
    • Feb 13, 2020by:   Larry Dorminy No Comments

      Bill Phases Out Many Single-Use Plastics

      A bill introduced this week in Washington, D.C., aims to phase out certain single-use plastic products and hold corporations accountable for wasteful products they produce. Such legislation is good news for wildlife and inhabitants of our southeast coasts where plastic has become so invasive.

      Bill Phases Out Many Single-Use Plastics
      Coastal Review Online

      Be the first to comment!

    • Feb 13, 2020by:   Larry Dorminy No Comments

      Florida’s Current Anchor Restrictions, FWC Commission Meeting, Feb 19-20, Tallahassee, FL

      This staff report is on the FWC February agenda and includes details outlining restrictions on anchoring in Florida waters. These setback distances are pertinent in light of Georgia’s recent extreme setbacks.

      MEMORANDUM
      To: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commissioners
      From: Colonel Curtis Brown, Director, Division of Law Enforcement
      Date: February 20, 2020
      Subject: Staff Report – Anchoring and Mooring Pilot Program/Derelict Vessel Report
      Purpose:
      Provide a report on the results of the 2009 Anchoring and Mooring Pilot Program and the status of the
      Derelict Vessel removal efforts.
      Why:
      How vessels are stowed, parked, and moored in Florida waters is a topic of great public interest across
      Florida and staff want to ensure Commissioners are kept apprised of current activities in this area and the
      most recent information on Derelict Vessel removal efforts.
      Top Points:
      1. The 2009 Anchoring and Mooring Pilot program resulted in the capture of best practices in order to
      recommend statewide changes to address issues legislatively.
      2. Legislation was passed in 2017 as a direct result of a 242-page report sent to the Florida Legislature
      and the Governor in January of 2017.
      3. The status of FWC Derelict Vessel removal efforts is good, with the Grant Program receiving a
      marked increase in participation after FWC grant rule changes went into effect on November 29, 2019.
      Affected Parties:
      The general boating public, local residents and waterfront property owners and many county and municipal
      government partners responsible for derelict vessel removals within their jurisdiction
      Summary:
      The Anchoring and Mooring Pilot Program began as an effort to address growing conflicts between the
      enjoyment of Florida’s waterways and the activities of anchoring and mooring upon state waters. This effort
      began in 2006 when stakeholder concerns were brought to the Commission. Staff sought the advice of the
      Florida Boating Advisory Council (BAC) in April 2007. The BAC suggested that the Commission seek
      clarification from the Florida Legislature on the appropriate roles of local and state authority to regulate
      vessels.
      At the June 2007 Commission meeting, staff was directed move forward with requesting clarification from
      the Florida Legislature as recommended by the BAC. Public input on anchoring and mooring issues was
      collected through 6 public meetings throughout the state attended by 273 stakeholders and a number of
      common concerns were identified. Further stakeholder engagement with over 700 additional stakeholders,
      resulted in a final recommendation which was approved by the Commission at their December 2008
      meeting. This recommendation was submitted to the Legislature during the 2009 Legislative session and as
      a result s.327.4105, Florida Statutes (F.S.) was enacted establishing authority to conduct an Anchoring and
      Mooring Pilot Program.
      FWC was required to submit a report on the pilot program findings and recommendations to the Governor,
      the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives by January 1, 2014. The pilot
      program and all ordinances adopted under the program would have expired on July 1, 2014; however, it was
      reenacted and extended by the Legislature with a new expiration date of July 1, 2017, and a requirement for
      an updated report to be submitted by January 1, 2017. The 2017 legislative session produced s. 327.4109
      F.S., which regulated anchoring or mooring by:
      • Establishing a 150-foot setback for anchoring around marinas, boat ramps, boat yards and other
      vessel launching or loading facilities;
      • Establishing a 300-foot setback from anchoring around any superyacht repair facility;
      • Establishing a 100-foot setback from anchoring around the outward boundary of a marked public
      mooring field. Anchoring within a public mooring field was prohibited outside of the established
      exemptions within the statute.
      • Prohibited tying to an unpermitted object attached to the water bottom (to prevent the proliferation
      of unpermitted moorings statewide).
      • Making all of these new violations noncriminal infractions punishable for a first offense, up to a
      maximum of $50, for a second offense, up to a maximum of $100, and for a third or subsequent
      offense, up to a maximum of $250, and included them in the list of mailable citations.
      In addition, other legislative changes included the addition of the effective means of propulsion for safe
      navigation test as a way to reduce the change of a vessel becoming derelict and increasing the penalty
      section for expiration of vessel registration to require a mandatory court appearance and a $500 fine for
      second and subsequent violations after 6 months. Local governments were also given authority to
      implement a proof of pumpout ordinance for vessels at anchor in a public mooring field for a period of 10
      consecutive days of more. This provision was contingent upon the availability of pumpout facilities within
      the jurisdiction establishing the program. Finally, changes were made to the derelict vessel statute to allow
      for actual notification of a derelict vessel in person as opposed to notification by certified mail and the
      ability to freeze the title of a derelict vessel to prevent the sale of the vessel while in a derelict condition.
      The update on Derelict Vessels will include an overview of the Grant program including the number of
      Grant applications received, executed contracts, vessels scheduled to be removed and the amount of funding
      obligated for removal.
      Staff Recommendation:
      No action is requested at this time, but input from Commissioners is welcomed.
      Staff Contact and/or Presenter:
      Major Robert Rowe, Section Leader, Division of Law Enforcement, Boating and Waterways Section

      Be the first to comment!

    • Feb 12, 2020by:   Larry Dorminy No Comments

      Opinion: Georgia’s HB 201 Takes Away 36 Acres of Anchor Grounds Per Designated Anchorage

      Our thanks to James Newsome and Ted Arisaka for sharing their mathematical musings on prohibited anchoring acreage contained in Georgia HB 201.

      Taking The Bat and The Ball & Going Home

      So my friend James Newsome (co founder of Facebook Group “Save Georgia’s Anchorages” https://www.facebook.com/groups/SaveGeorgiasAnchorages/ ) and I were ruminating about the impact of a single structure of a waterfront property owner now taking exclusive control of a huge swath of waterway and prohibiting anchoring.

      We believe the structure now causes unreasonable obstruction to navigation and have started discussions with US Army Corps of Engineers as they have a role in administering the permitting process for these waterfront structures under PGP0083 – but that’s a topic for another day.

      A semi circle defined by a radius of 1000ft off a waterfront property owner’s structure is 36 acres.

      So how can we picture one acre? A football field is approximately 1.32 acres.

      (Ref: https://www.stack.com/a/how-many-acres-is-a-football-field)

      So 36 Acres / 1.32 Acres per football field = 27.3 football fields!

      I’ve heard about unsportsman like conduct when one kid takes the bat and ball and goes home and ends the game for everyone. Looks like this time the one kid is taking the bat the ball and 27 football fields away to end the game for everyone.

      Addendum:

      For those of you interested in the math:

      A semi circle with a 1000ft radius from a structure is equivalent to 36 acres.

      Area of a circle = p r2 so 3.14 * (1000ft)2 = 3,140,000 square feet

      1 acre = 43560 square feet

      So the area of that semi circle = 3,140,000 sq ft / 43560 sq ft per acre / 2 = 36.0 Acres

      A football field is approximately 1.32 acres.

      (Ref: https://www.stack.com/a/how-many-acres-is-a-football-field)

      36 Acres / 1.32 Acres per football field = 27.3 football fields

      1 Facebook Likes, 4 Facebook Reactions

      Be the first to comment!

    • Feb 12, 2020by:   Larry Dorminy 1 Comment

      Bahamas Chatter: Bad Electronic Chart

      Explorer Charts - the best charts for the Bahamas and Exumas

      Bahamas Chatter is produced by Explorer Chartbooks, A CRUISERS NET PARTNER, which has long been the standard navigational supplement for enjoyable, informative, and safe cruising through the beautiful Bahamian waters and island visits.

      Bahamas Chatter: Bad Electronic Chart

      Bad Electronic Chart

      Posted: 10 Feb 2020 03:18 PM PST

      This is from a cruising yachtsman in The Bahamas this month:

      Here is another “oops” story!

      We met a sailor who has a large power catamaran.
      He loves to anchor at the south end of Big Farmers Cay.
      He told us he took a short cut to get out of the anchorage and ran aground and had to power through the sand to get out. We couldn’t believe he even tried it. He said his plotter showed 7 feet there and he had a Garmin. We insisted he come aboard and look at the paper Explorer charts (which he had, but left home). He was amazed that the data on the plotter was not the same as the chart. He also said he had his iPad aboard but he had updated it and lost the Explorer charts on the Garmin Blue Charts app.
      We included a screen shot of Navionics for that area and he ran aground north of the wreck while trying to jump the bar. Navionics shows 7’.. .
      We explained to him that Explorer data was no longer on that Garmin plotter.
      We told him he should be using his eyeballs but he trusts his instruments. We explained why that doesn’t work in a Bahamas boating scenario!!!

      So much of what is depicted here  in this Navionics chart is pure fiction & makes us wonder how this data was accumulated. It is a physical impossibility that a boat had occupied the position north of the wreck & recorded a sounding of 7.7 or 9.2’unless they were there on 10’ high tide & forgot to apply a tidal offset. The Explorer chart shows “Sand nearly dry a low Water”.

       

      NOTE from Explorer:  If you have a Garmin chart plotter with data before February 2019, (BlueChart G2) that is Explorer data. After Feb. 2019 (G3) is Navionics, NOT Explorer data.

      Comments from Cruisers (1)

      1. Ted Arisaka -  February 12, 2020 - 5:14 pm

        Indeed the gold standard for The Bahamas.

        Reply to Ted
    • Feb 12, 2020by:   Larry Dorminy 1 Comment

      BoatUS Appeals to Georgia Governor to Fix Anchoring Law plus News Report

      BoatUS has taken up the cause of boaters urging the repeal of an extremely restrictive anchoring law recently enacted by the Georgia legislature. See Save Georgia’s Anchorages.

      BoatUS Calls On Georgia Governor to Fix

      Draconian Anchoring Law: Asks Boaters to Speak Up Now

      Legislation greatly restricts the right to anchor

      ATLANTA, Feb. 6, 2020 – In a letter sent recently to Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, Boat Owners Association of The United States (BoatUS) urges the governor to reconsider regulations recently put in place restricting overnight anchoring within 1,000 feet of any structure, such as public and private docks, wharves, bridges, piers and pilings, except in areas near marinas. The national advocacy, services and safety group also asks recreational boaters to send a message now to the state of Georgia regarding the new prohibitive anchoring law.

      With 16,000 BoatUS members in the state, BoatUS Vice President of Government Affairs Chris Edmonston says in the letter that the new rule effectively removes from public use a significant portion of the state’s waters, representing a departure from the long-held public trust doctrine.

      With little notice or engagement with boating stakeholder groups, the Georgia Legislature approved, and the governor signed, House Bill 201 in the 2019 session. This legislation directs the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to develop rules regarding the anchoring of vessels in estuarine areas of the state. Georgia DNR then proposed a rule that raised significant concerns with the boating community, including BoatUS and the grassroots group Save Georgia’s Anchorages, which was created in response to the draconian law.

      Said Edmonston, “This 1,000-foot offset needlessly eliminates anchorages all over the state. It will affect numerous boaters, many of whom transit Georgia waters as part of the annual migration along the Intracoastal Waterway. There is no reasonable safety or waterway-management reason for taking such a significant swath of state waters from the boating public. Boating and fishing are the second largest outdoor recreational activity in Georgia, bringing in well over $500 million a year in economic activity. Eliminating scores of anchorages will put a severe damper on this very important economic driver to many coastal areas that gain from boater spending.”

      Edmonston notes DNR did create so-called “Marina Zones” that allow boaters to anchor as close as 300 feet to marinas or facilities that provide fuel, dinghy access, provisions, vessel maintenance or other services, regardless of whether other structures exist nearby. “This can only lead to the conclusion that the reason for the greater offset from privately owned structures outside these zones was to provide waterfront landowners with near exclusive use and enjoyment of our shared waterways,” said Edmonston.

      BoatUS believes the final rule runs counter to the public trust doctrine as codified in Georgia Code § 52-1-2 (2015) which states: “The State of Georgia, as sovereign, is trustee of the rights of the people of the state to use and enjoy all tidewaters which are capable of use for fishing, passage, navigation, commerce, and transportation, pursuant to the common law public trust doctrine.” BoatUS notes the anchoring of vessels is an integral part of navigation.

      2/12/20 Boating groups blast new anchoring rules as too restrictive
      Savannah Morning News

      4 Facebook Likes, 6 Facebook Reactions

      Comments from Cruisers (1)

      1. Ted Arisaka -  February 6, 2020 - 3:41 pm

        Boats at anchor in Georgia under fire. Great photo by Craig Rowdon, member of FB Group "Save Georgia's Anchorages" who has allowed multiple media outlets to use his photo.

        Reply to Ted
    • Feb 11, 2020by:   Larry Dorminy 1 Comment 32.7729,-79.84219999

      Ben Sawyer Bridge, AICW Statute Mile 462, Mount Pleasant, SC


       View In Chartview

      With a closed vertical clearance of 31ft, Ben Sawyer Bridge is the last bridge before Charleston Harbor when southbound. Opened in 1945, the Ben Sawyer Bridge serves as the connection from Mount Pleasant to Sullivan’s Island.

      2 Your Roots: The Ben Sawyer Bridge
      WCBD News 2

       

      Click Here To View the South Carolina Cruisers Net Bridge Directory Listing For Ben Sawyer Memorial Bridge

      Click Here To Open A Chart View Window, Zoomed To the Location of Ben Sawyer Bridge

      Comments from Cruisers (1)

      1. James Lea -  February 11, 2020 - 9:40 pm

        A number of years ago, we were passing through the bridge. I called the bridge operator and asked if she knew she had been voted the best bridge operator by an ICW user group. She was tickled pink, and I told her it was deserved. We have only passed through the bridge a half dozen times or so on our spring-fall migrations, and it was always a pleasant experience (even when I just missed it a couple of times).

        Reply to James
    • Feb 10, 2020by:   Larry Dorminy 2 Comments

      Roger Long’s Letter to GA Legislators

      Thank you, Roger, for this excellent letter and for your decision to address each legislator – a very good idea. Cruisers Net joins Roger and others in encouraging you to write to the Georgia legislature protesting HB 201 and urging the passage of HB 833. Roger Long is a lifelong cruiser and frequent contributor to Cruisers Net.

      Larry,

      It was a lot of cut and pasting work but I addressed each GA house member individually.  I think having just one name in the “To” line instead of a hidden list or long string of email addresses gets more attention.  I already received a reply, on the same day, from one legislator who said he would go and talk to the sponsors of HB 833.

      Roger

       

      Subject: Protect Georgia Water Quality – Support HB 833

      I am a former Harbormaster in Maine, responsible for managing anchoring and mooring as a member of the police department in my home town. I am a twice yearly visitor to Georgia as we cruise through on our boat and have observed boating practices and harbor management in the majority of ports between Halifax, NS and southern Florida. I have also served on the boards of two water quality environmental organizations of which I was a founding member.

      I have followed with horror the anchoring imbroglio your state has created not only as unnecessary infringement of boater’s rights but as being counterproductive to both resource protection and navigation issues I used to deal with professionally. The only positive effect of the current law will be to please waterfront property owners. This will come at the cost of economic damage to Georgia marine business. The effects on water quality in the state will actually be detrimental for reasons too long to go into here. I would be glad to explain my reasoning on this if contacted.

      HB 833 will correct this situation and help alleviate the economic and environmental damage that last year’s bill will create. urge you to support and vote for HB 833.

      Roger Long

      M/V “Gypsy Star”

      Comments from Cruisers (2)

      1. Roger Long -  February 10, 2020 - 4:10 pm

        I have already had six replies from GA house members to emails sent less than 24 hours ago, on a Sunday no less. It is encouraging, two of clear support, one saying he’ll keep my comments in mind. One said he is getting lots of letters. Curious: Are others getting replies? If you answer, please indicate if you did mass or individual emails. We’ll be fighting this fight again somewhere and I’d like to know if the half day spent sending individual emails was worth the effort.
        Roger

        Reply to Roger
        • Scott Draper -  February 18, 2020 - 1:06 am

          Hi Roger, My name is Scott Draper. I will be working at the Georgia Legislature in support of HB833. I am interested in which elected officials you heard back from, and their response. Thanks, Scott

          Reply to Scott
    • Feb 9, 2020by:   Larry Dorminy 2 Comments

      Federal vs State Anchoring Zones in Georgia by Ted Arisaka

      Once again by sharing his research, Ted Arisaka continues to be very active through FB Save Georgia’s Anchorages in seeking to repeal Georgia HB 201 which restricts anchoring in Georgia’s coastal waters. See Open Letter.

      Federal vs State Anchoring Zones in Georgia

      I had seen some posts, most notably by FB “Save Georgia’s Anchorages” group member Bill Ballard (thank you Bill), questioning the seeming conflict between Federal and State designations for the area on Skidaway River around the Isle of Hope as well as on the Frederica River just south of Morningstar Marina Golden Isles.

      I was able to load the GA DNR KMZ Files (w/their opacity down to 50%) on top of NOAA RNC maps onto Google Earth Pro (further information in the Addendum).

      Skidaway River, Isle of Hope

      The anchorage ground known as “110.179 Skidaway River, Isle of Hope, Ga.” can be found in the CFR Title 33 – Navigation and Navigable Waters, Chapter 1 – Coast Guard, Dept of Homeland Security, Subchapter I – Anchorages, Part 110 – Anchorage Regulations, Subpart B – Anchorage Grounds, Section 110.179 – Skidaway River, Isle of Hope Ga.

      (Ref: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2012-title33-vol1/pdf/CFR-2012-title33-vol1-sec110-179.pdf)

      In layman’s terms, it defines the anchorage area, sets a 50ft setback off wharves and MLW Line, cannot impede navigation, limits LOA to 65’ and sets a speed limit of 5 mph. It is designated as a “Special Anchorage Area” and in Part 109 – Special Anchorage Areas, stipulates vessels < 65ft do not need to display an anchor light.

      You can see how the red GA DNR “300ft Marina Buffer” no anchoring zones overlap with the federally designated anchorage 110.179 as indicated on the NOAA RNC Chart.

      Figure 1 Google Earth with NOAA and GA DNR Zones Isle of Hope

      Frederica River, St Simons

      The anchorage known as “St. Simons Island, Georgia” can be found in the CFR Title 33 – Navigation and Navigable Waters, Chapter 1 – Coast Guard, Dept of Homeland Security, Subchapter I – Anchorages, Part 110 – Anchorage Regulations, Subpart B – Anchorage Grounds, Section 110.72b – St. Simons Island, Georgia.

      (Ref: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2012-title33-vol1/pdf/CFR-2012-title33-vol1-sec110-72b.pdf)

      Again in this case you can see how the red GA DNR “300ft Marina Buffer” no anchoring zones overlap with the federally designated anchorage 110.72b as indicated on the NOAA RNC Chart.

      Both red zones currently encroach upon the federal anchorages and cause confusion for the vessel operator and law enforcement as to which laws prevail.

      I corresponded jointly with Georgia DNR Coastal Resource Division and NOAA Office of Coast Survey and I am happy to report that I received clarification yesterday (2/7/20) on this matter with the following statement from GA DNR CRD:

      “Hello Mr. Arisaka,

      The USCG designated Special Anchorage Areas (as you’ve identified adjacent to Isle of Hope Marina in Chatham County and Morningstar Golden Isles Marina in Glyn County) prevail over state designated anchorage areas. 

      Thank You,

      (name redacted)”

      I made a followup inquiry as to how this would be updated on the GA DNR Website depicting these zones (especially now that they have switched the base map to the NOAA RNC charts) and await their response.

      I’d like to thank our state and federal agencies for working together to bring clarity to this one aspect of the new Georgia anchoring regulations.

      Addendum:

      To access NOAA resources to overlay RNC charts onto Google Earth visit this site:

      https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/data/gis-data-and-services.html#seamless-raster-nautical-chart-services

      For a great tutorial on how to do this on YouTube by David Burch of Starpath Navigation visit:

      https://youtu.be/QtD7rMLcAUI

      To download the Georgia DNR Zones in KMZ Format:

      https://coastalgadnr.org/Liveaboards

      2 Facebook Likes, 2 Facebook Reactions

      Comments from Cruisers (2)

      1. Cruisers Net -  February 9, 2020 - 1:53 pm

        Absolutely well done research and presentation.
        With Ted’s permission every cruiser who has ever and would like to continue to anchor while going through Georgia, should sent this to all Georgia legislators and governor. Well done Ted. I salute you !

        Reply to Cruisers
    • Feb 8, 2020by:   Larry Dorminy No Comments

      More on Georgia Anchoring Rules and HB 833 from Kim Russo

      Cruisers Net joins Kim Russo and AGLCA in urging you to contact legislators asking for a repeal of HB 201 and for their support of HB 833.

      It’s time to send more emails, please!

      As we’ve reported Gold Looper and Georgia State Representative, Ron Stephens, has filed a bill (HB 833) to eliminate the problems with the state’s new anchoring regulations.  HB 833 (attached) would, among other things, take away power afforded to DNR during the 2019 legislative session to determine where boaters can anchor. On January 1st, rules took effect that prohibit anchoring within 1,000-feet of structures such as public and private docks, wharves, bridges, piers and pilings.  HB 833, if it becomes law, lowers that distance to 150-feet.

      (See this BoatU.S. press release for a good summary of the issue.)

      HB 833 will be heard soon before the Georgia House of Representatives Natural Resources and Environment Committee.  We need as many boaters as possible to email the members of this committee.  Following is a list of those committee members and their email addresses, as well as a sample email you may customize for your use:

      House Natural Resources and Environment Committee

      Lynn Smith, Chairman- Lynn.Smith@house.ga.gov

      Vance Smith, Vice Chairman- Vance.Smith@house.ga.gov

      Don Hogan, Secretary- Don.Hogan@house.ga.gov

      Timothy Barr, Member- Timothy.Barr@house.ga.gov

      Debra Bazemore, Member- Debra.Bazemore@house.ga.gov

      Debbie Buckner, Member- Debbie.Buckner@house.ga.gov

      Joe Campbell, Member- Joe.Campbell@house.ga.gov

      John Corbett, Member- John.Corbett@house.ga.gov

      Robert Dickey, Member- Robert.Dickey@house.ga.gov

      Karla Drenner, Member- Karla.Drenner@house.ga.gov

      Terry England, Member- Terry.England@house.ga.gov

      Pat Gardner, Member- Pat.Gardner@house.ga.gov

      Sheri Gilligan, Member- Sheri.Gilligan@house.ga.gov

      Angelika Kausche, Member- Angelika.Kausche@house.ga.gov

      Tom McCall, Member- Tom.McCall@house.ga.gov

      Greg Morris, Member- Greg.Morris@house.ga.gov

      Randy Nix, Member- Randy.Nix@house.ga.gov

      Richard H. Smith, Member- Richard.Smith@house.ga.gov

      Jan Tankersley, Member- Jan.Tankersley@house.ga.gov

      Kevin Tanner, Member- Kevin.Tanner@house.ga.gov

      “Able” Mable Thomas, Member- Mable.Thomas@house.ga.gov

      Sam Watson, Member- Sam.Watson@house.ga.gov

      Mary Frances Williams, Member- MaryFrances.Williams@house.ga.gov

      Noel Williams, Jr., Member- Noel.Williams@house.ga.gov


      Sample Email for you to customize:

      I urge you to support Georgia House Bill 833, which corrects the unintended consequences of Georgia House Bill 201 passed in 2019.  HB 201’s implementation rules issued by the Department of Natural Resources restrict overnight anchoring within 1,000 feet of any structure, such as public and private docks, wharves, bridges, piers and pilings, except in areas near marinas.  This is an egregious infringement on my ability to enjoy Georgia’s waterways and a failure to honor the public trust doctrine. Further, there is no reasonable safety or waterway-management reason for taking such a significant swath of state waters from the boating public.

      Please support HB 833 and work with all stakeholders to protect the public’s right to free navigation.

      In addition, HB 833 needs a companion bill in the Senate.  Please email the Georgia Senators that represent the coastal districts and urge them to file a companion bill.  Following is a list those Senators and their email addresses, as well as a sample email you may customize for your use:

      Senator Ben Watson, District 1, ben.watson@senate.ga.gov

      Senator William T. Ligon, Jr., District 3, william.ligon@senate.ga.gov

      Sample Email for you to Customize:

      I urge you to file a Senate companion bill to Georgia House Bill 833, which corrects the unintended consequences of Georgia House Bill 201 passed in 2019.  HB 201’s implementation rules issued by the Department of Natural Resources restrict overnight anchoring within 1,000-feet of any structure, such as public and private docks, wharves, bridges, piers and pilings, except in areas near marinas.  This is an egregious infringement on my ability to enjoy Georgia’s waterways and a failure to honor the public trust doctrine. Further, there is no reasonable safety or waterway-management reason for taking such a significant swath of state waters from the boating public.

      Please support HB 833 by filing a companion bill in the Senate, and work with all stakeholders to protect the public’s right to free navigation.

      Thank you all for your help.  If you’re near Atlanta, or can get there for a hearing, please watch this forum thread.  We’ll be posting soon about when the House Natural Resources and Environment Committee with hear this bill!

      -Kim

      Kim Russo
      Director
      America’s Great Loop Cruisers’ Association

      House Bill 833

       

      Be the first to comment!

    • Feb 8, 2020by:   Larry Dorminy No Comments

      Open Letter: HB201 Pre-judged? by Ted Arisaka

      Ted Arisaka has been very active through Save Georgia’s Anchorages in seeking to repeal Georgia HB 201 which restricts anchoring in Georgia’s coastal waters. See Commentary on GA HB201.

      Pre-judged?

      I so enjoyed Jack White’s powerful letter “Betrayal Of The Public Trust”. He opened it with an analogy we can all relate to:
      “Remember when you were in school and a few kids did something wrong and the whole class got punished? If so, then welcome to legislation—Georgia style!”
      Well remember when two kids would get into a fight and the teacher broke it up? Then what? What I remember happening is that the teacher would investigate what caused the conflict and direct any admonishments appropriately. I never witnessed an automatic rebuke on one party based on a kid’s outward appearance, ethnicity, religion, socio economic status, parents’ political allegiance, etc.
      So when GA DNR states:
      “The intent of the change and enforcement will be to prohibit overnight anchoring in locations that could degrade shellfish production, cause navigation hazards, or create conflicts between waterfront homeowners and the boating public.”
      I ask myself, what new education campaigns have been implemented to inform waterfront homeowners of their riparian rights, as well as those of the boaters? What new legislation was introduced to protect boaters from conflicts with waterfront landowners? It seems there is an assumption that the boat owner is always to blame.
      Conflicts sometimes arise due to a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of one party or the other, often with an unfortunate injection of poor manners. Here is an example of a 2019 incident between a recreational fisherman and a homeowner which occurred in Florida. WPEC covered this news story:
      (Ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIn8oln3PeQ )
      (Here is the entire footage taken by the fisherman above. Warning: some of the language is R rated)
      Ironically, the GA DNR AO specifically excludes recreational fisherman in this ban. I say this because if GA DNR believes “distance” is the solution to “conflicts”, why exclude those who are typically going to be close to these “structures”?
      “This law change, and the associated administrative order, is not intended to restrict or impact boaters engaged in fishing and other recreational activities in Coastal Georgia.”
       
      Some of you reading this may think I am unfairly taking one kid’s side as a cruising boat owner.
      I am also a fisherman and enjoy coastal fishing in the lowcountry and do so respectfully of homeowners.

      I am also a waterfront property owner. I enjoy seeing the boats passing or anchoring where we can admire them from our home. I expect that they do so respectfully and if there were to be a problem boater I think it would be sensible to deal with that on a case by case basis with laws that already exist.

      I don’t think the teacher did a good job this time in deciding which kid to punish. Maybe the teacher already knew which kid was going to be punished before this all started?

      Image Source: “Scales of Justice” by Government of Prince Edward Island is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

       
      28587017230_afaa14ddfc.jpg

      1 Facebook Likes, 1 Facebook Reactions

      Be the first to comment!


    Social Media Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com