• Share:

Comments from Cruisers (30) Add Comment

1. Jim Healy -  December 25, 2015 - 10:39 am

   What’s missing here is a definition of the problem we’re trying to solve. This discussion is all over the place. If the problem is “derelict vessels,” the fix needs to address derelict vessels. If the problem is “apartment yachts,” the fix needs to address apartment yachts. If the problem is “live-aboard” boaters, the fix should address live-aboard boaters. If the problem is “property damage,” the fix needs to address property damage. If the problem is “bad behavior”, the fix needs to address bad behavior. (Of course, recognize that leads to the discussion of licensing). Although I’m not convinced it’s legally necessary, the Florida House of Representatives has, for the second year, proposed a “fix” targeted at derelict vessels (HB 7025). We should all probably support that; it targets “derelict vessels” and those “at-risk” of becoming derelict, and doesn’t affect the rights of cruisers at all. AUTHORITIES IN EVERY COMMUNITY, EVERYWHERE (even Sausalito), KNOW WHICH VESSELS ARE BECOMING DERELICT WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION. That DOES NOT happen overnight. If those self-same authorities choose to allow those vessels to remain in-place and deteriorate, that’s on them. IT IS NOT AN ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO IMPOUND THE RIGHTS OF CRUISERS AND CRUISING BOATS. The rest of the issues being aggregated in this discussion are also already addressed by law. RESTRICTING THE NAVIGATION RIGHTS OF CRUISERS should not even be considered unless an actual problem can be assigned to that class of boater and/or boat use. Those who would abrogate cruiser’s rights do not speak for me.

   Reply to Jim
• Steve Adams -  December 26, 2015 - 5:59 pm

  You’re throwing the baby out with the bath water in your thought process. See the Florida Statue, Chapter 327.02(15) – Houseboat. They can also be defined as “Liveaboard Vessels” 327.02(19). Both may be regulated by the local municipalities. And, they are being used for commercial reasons. Those of us who actually cruise are not defined by those statutes. As soon as those who think things should fit the model they see, the worse it becomes for many of us that have FOUGHT HARD to KEEP our rights to the waterways. Free access to the waterways has nothing to do with how long a vessel used navigation happens to hole up in, or is anchored in one place.

  The laws are pretty clear, they are not being implemented as defined. And many times on purpose, as in this case… to provoke the ire of those who are not informed.

  Reply to Steve
2. Steve Adams -  December 11, 2015 - 8:00 pm

   Those vessels would be considered liveaboard vessels, and may be regulated by the local governments. By no means, are they non-liveaboard vessels engaged in navigation.

   Reply to Steve
3. Beverly R Feiges -  December 11, 2015 - 3:28 pm

   In all the years and times we have crossed the Gulf Stream, more than 35 times, we have never waited for weather more than a day or two if at all. Our tactic, when we hit southern Florida is to go at the first opportunity, and if it is not immediate, we keep going further south on the inside. The further south you go, the quicker the passage back north riding the GS current. I concur with a time limit, one week is plenty. The people who come and stay for longer than a week, particularly when you start talking a month or more, can make i timpossible for anyone else to anchor. If you cannot do what you have to do in a week, go to a marina. For the really tight places, like Lake Sylvia, a few days should do it. Hope never to see the congestion we saw last year, when crossing conditions we so ideal, and these boats obvpusly had no intention of moving. We had to anchor on the shortest of scopes ever and only did so because we knew there was zero wind forecasted.

   Reply to Beverly
• Joe Blanchard -  December 25, 2015 - 11:27 am

  One should always be weary of any government involvement in an activity. It start with their just repairing a tear in your jeans and before long they own the jeans then the jean factory. Remember when they passed the seat belt law in Florida and said that they would never be able to ticket you if that was your only violation but within a year they quietly changed it so that they can now ticket for that violation alone. We need to self regulate ourselves just like the diving industry did when they all agreed that you had to have a diving card to get air.

  Reply to Joe
• Steve Adams -  December 26, 2015 - 6:25 pm

  Why shouldn’t a cruiser want to spend a month or so, or more, in the Keys if they’re having a great time? Or, anywhere else for that matter? The problem is that the laws designed to protect the waterways for free navigation are not being enforced, and are not enforced mostly to force local political issues. The derelicts and vessels not fit for navigation, or not used for navigation, may be regulated or removed according to the law. And this is provided for in Florida Statue. And, vessels used for commerce, i.e., rental properties, may be regulated also.

  Reply to Steve
4. Phil Doucette -  December 4, 2015 - 5:22 pm

   A one week limit on Anchoring in Any one place to me seems short and short sighted, many times the weather can pose a safe navigation problem for a period much longer than one week. Also their are many areas where anchoring for much longer than one week should not be a problem for any one, no one around, no homes, just peace and quiet!! Leave us boaters alone!!
   Many times the activities , and behaviors of the nearby landlubbers are so unbearable that even one night is difficult to bear!!

   Reply to Phil
• Rick Cass -  December 18, 2015 - 2:49 pm

  We have had to wait as long as three weeks for a crossing. Manybcross with other vessels, some with little experience. One week is verybshort” as there is no reason why those who want a quiet crossing should be limited by the property owners who have no real claim on the water distinct from the rest of us. Putting unrealistic limits on anchoring and passage is jist another brick in the wall.

  Reply to Rick
5. Peter Hoyt -  December 4, 2015 - 4:38 pm

   I believe all boats should be fully insured before given registration. Then insurance company’s would have to police the boats for navigable and seaworthy. As it would be their responsibility if anything happens to a vessel. Peter

   Reply to Peter
• Buddy Cheek -  December 12, 2015 - 10:39 am

  Sounds like moving the responsibility from the responsible owner. This is not good.

  Reply to Buddy
• Peter Hoyt -  December 20, 2015 - 11:41 am

  It should be ovious what were doing now is not working, by letting the insurance industry survey and insure boats before a boat could be registered would shift the responsibility from the responsible boat owner from the derelict , uninsured or negligence boat owner.

6. Norman Mason -  December 4, 2015 - 3:32 pm

   I agree with Dick Mills. Having cruised in Florida for two winters, I cannot think of anywhere I would want to stay longer than a week. It would seem that a time limitation would do much to resolve the problem of derelict vessels.

   The main problem I see to cruising in Florida is how negative the government is to cruising vessels. Never mind the major impact they have on the economy of prime cruising destinations (Vero Beach, Stuart, Cocoa). If you look at Marathon and Boot Key Harbor, the 200 + vessels moored there must have a huge impact on the local economy.

   Norman Mason
   Norfolk, VA

   Reply to Norman
• Rick Cass -  December 18, 2015 - 2:55 pm

  Having travelled the AICW a number of times, I must say that there are quite beautiful places where wven three weeks at abchor there are barely enough, while equally beautiul places are o ly worth (in our humble opinion) only a day or two. Differ nt strokes for different folks. Why should any artificial limit be placed on navigation be the vast majority in order to appease the landowners frustration over a few idiots. The parallel to this would be to restrict d iving on freeways because a few drunk drivers cause havoc and misery. Please, let’s focus on the reasonable.

  Reply to Rick
• Steve Adams -  December 26, 2015 - 6:37 pm

  Your absolutely right. Where in cruising does it spell time limit? Too many think that maritime tradition should meet what they envision it to be. Keep the waterways clear and free for navigation. While in navigation, my anchor should be able to set wherever it is not impeding a waterway, or not spoiling a protected area. And, my vessel should be seaworthy and maintained.

  Some vessels should not be on the water, nor should some boat drivers.

7. ted -  December 4, 2015 - 2:10 pm

   Time limit, absolutely. But one or two weeks? We’ve had two weeks of very high winds in S Florida with no good window to cross the gulf stream. 30 to 60 days will allow a captain to go ashore and do what they want to do and then wait out severe conditions that often hamper movement in the winter.

   Reply to ted
8. Roger Long -  December 2, 2015 - 4:18 pm

   It has amazed me for the decades I have been following the FL anchoring issue that virtually no one ever brings up the essential point. This is the one that the boating community should be hammering, hammering, hammering home. It should be the primary talking point and sound bite because it addresses both sides of the issue and is rooted in the underlying common law.
   The “Second Amendment” of our anchoring rights is the freedom of navigation enshrined in maritime law. A vessel is only navigating if it is capable of movement. That means not only having propulsion but competent crew on board. Anchoring an unattended vessel is poor seamanship as anchors drag. (Attended can mean being ashore shopping and sightseeing but with an eye on the weather and means for promptly returning to the vessel.) The main point is that there should be different requirements for vessels engaged in navigation and occupied and vessels without power or which do not have crew close enough at hand to return within a short period of time.
   I will not anchored my vessel overnight unattended as it is irresponsible to other craft and poor seamanship. If you take a road trip, the vessel should be on a mooring or in a marina. FL should simply make it illegal to leave a vessel at anchor unattended overnight. If it is not navigation they have every right to restrict anchoring. If it is navigation, restrictions should be minimal. Navigation requires that a crew be on board or capable of being on board quickly as well as a means of propulsion.
   BTW, I am a former Harbormaster from Maine.
   Roger Long

   Reply to Roger
• Bob Austin -  December 4, 2015 - 4:13 pm

  Well said, that anchorages discussed are for boats which are actively cruising. I doubt that the city fathers want the type of messes which have plagued Key West, Marathon, San Diego, Sausalito, and a number of other cities which had boats which were not able to move.

  There is also the issue of short term rental such as we see invading residential neighborhoods, such as VBRO. There is also the issue of liability to the boat owners.

  Reply to Bob
• Steve Adams -  December 11, 2015 - 8:37 pm

  Totally disagree! Maritime rights have been established. Check your ground tackle if your vessel has a tendency drag. What if you and boating buddy, steam into an anchorage, and would like to take a field trip…. that’s the point of the voyage…. not to be stuck aboard at all times. What? You mean hiring a boat boy found at Joe’s Lounge to watch your vessel while you take in the country side? What is he going to do to stop the anchor from dragging, because you failed to set your tackle correctly? What if, on your cruise, you decide to set anchor and work for the remainder of the season? Why shouldn’t you? The whole and salient point, keep your vessel seaworthy, and be responsible for her. Non-liveaboard vessels have the right of anchorage, when not impeding another’s way.

  Reply to Steve
• Ocean Dancer -  December 19, 2015 - 3:46 pm

  This seems to explain the crux of the matter: “The whole and salient point, keep your vessel seaworthy…”
  Many of the vessels we have seen would not qualify as seaworthy in the least; many are, in fact, partially submerged or even capsized. Who is responsible for keeping the waterway clear? Other boats appear to have no way to keep water from entering broken windows and hatches. Still others are blocking the navigable channels. Cars left in similar conditions along roadways are tagged and then towed at the owner’s expense.

• Steve Adams -  December 26, 2015 - 6:43 pm

  And, Ocean Dancer, I’ll say the vessel’s owner should be responsible, or billed, to clear it away when she becomes derelict. That would mean, make sure your Bill of Sale, Documentation, or Title is clear when you buy, or sell, your boat.

9. Peter Colket -  December 1, 2015 - 9:15 am

   Owners of “apartment yachts” would have to provide a pump-out boat. They would also have to be responsible for maintenance of plumbing and other systems with which landlords are generally unfamiliar. There would also be the cost of installing and maintaining moorings. By the time all the costs are understood, the concept may not prove viable. If this scheme progresses, the boating community should make sure regulators understand and enforce all applicable safety and sanitation issues in the permitting process. Then, hopefully, this balloon will lose its air.

   Reply to Peter
10. Ron -  November 30, 2015 - 12:01 pm

    I think that if restrictions are necessary, a time limit on anchoring is the best and fairest solution. One week seems short to me but two weeks seems pretty fair.

    There needs to be a balance between our rights to anchor our boats and fleets of derelict boats clogging the waterways until thy break loose or sink in place.

    Reply to Ron
• Steve Adams -  December 11, 2015 - 9:10 pm

  The balance, Ron, is Liveaboard v Non-liveaboard as defined by law considerate of maritime tradition. What is a fair balance? Forbidding shot guns, but allowing single load .22 cal rifles? Renting out non-navigable vessels is flooding safe harbors with “Liveaboard” vessels. Yes…. those can be regulated by local governments, but “Non-liveaboard” may not. Check the law… Maritime Law and tradition is not solely based upon personal experience or opinion. It is a matter of the rights of navigation with centuries of precedence.

  See Florida State Statutes 327 (19), and, 327 (15).

  http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2015/Chapter327/All

  Reply to Steve
• Rick Cass -  December 18, 2015 - 3:03 pm

  We arrived in Stuart on 9/22, int nding to be in the Keys by 10/5. Well, medical and upgrade issues intervened, and we will not leave Stuart until the New Year. If we pretend to live in a free society, then limitations must be minimal, and based on real harm, and not some rich guy’s sense of injured entitlement.

  Reply to Rick
• Steve Adams -  December 26, 2015 - 6:45 pm

  Perfectly said.

11. Sonny Reeves -  November 28, 2015 - 10:11 pm

    We boaters must do something or the powers that be will do it for us. If we do not clean up our act and help local anchorages police the derelicts, get the non operating “Apartments” into a legal status and cleaned up then all boaters will suffer.
    Well not the 50 ft powerboater that passed me near Bahia Mar last year going over 40. That type won’t suffer because he does not cruise or liva board.

    Reply to Sonny
• Steve Adams -  December 11, 2015 - 9:21 pm

  Sonny, you’re right. Many who should not be on the water have boats… and…. there are many boats that should not be on the water. It is so easy for some to offer opinion based on limited experience. Recently, a lot of cronyism is associated with government trying to keep the big campaign donations coming in. Those of us who are Florida Natives are getting pretty sick of Yankee-refugees trying to shape our state! Especially our waterways and maritime way of life!

  Reply to Steve
• Rick Cass -  December 18, 2015 - 3:06 pm

  OK, lets try to define what should be on the water means, and aside from safety and navigability, what should be done to thos who should not be on the water.

• Steve Adams -  December 26, 2015 - 6:52 pm

  Rick Cass: The vessel: Seaworthy and maintained. And like wise, someone who knows channel markers, who know how to handle their vessel, and is able to assess, evaluate and set their ground tackle.

• Steve Adams -  December 26, 2015 - 6:54 pm

  One more thing: Those who understand how not to put others in peril.

• Share:

Be the first to comment! Add Comment