POLL - Anchor-outs vs Cruisers - should permanent anchor-outs be restricted in ICW/AICW anchorages?

[mvweebles]

When grants don't come to remove abandoned boats, guess where it comes from? Taxes.

Where do you think the grants come from? Different pot of taxes (state or federal vs community). Our town (Madeira Beach FL) had a dozen boats removed earlier this year - mostly 30-35 footers, a few smaller, one or two larger. Worked out to just under $20k/each.

 

[psneeld]

From Florida FWC.......

Florida boat registration funds support various programs, including the Florida Boating Improvement Program (FBIP), which funds local projects for boating-related infrastructure such as channel markings, public boat ramps, and derelict vessel removal.

 

[mvweebles]

From Florida FWC.......

Florida boat registration funds support various programs, including the Florida Boating Improvement Program (FBIP), which funds local projects for boating-related infrastructure such as channel markings, public boat ramps, and derelict vessel removal.

.......and their budget comes from the Florida State General Fund and other grants.

Budget

Budget

myfwc.com

 

[SeaLion]

I'm with Hippocampus. We have a huge problem with abandoned boats, most of which went through the process of being a live aboard, then a run down live aboard, then a derelcit, and finally abandoned. Often the owners are from out of state or cannot be traced, thus the wreck ends up a liability. Even if onwers can be traced, unless they are local a supoena cannot be enforced to make them do anything unless the vessel obstructs navigagtion. Most do not. One township got a $150,000 grant to dispose of abandoned boats. Went as far as removing 10. 10! most were 25-30 foot vessels. $15K a pop to have them hauled onto a barge and taken to a place where they could be chain-sawed, then hauled to the landfill.

When grants don't come to remove abandoned boats, guess where it comes from? Taxes.

Agreed, but grants are just other peoples’ taxes, so we still foot the bill for bad actors.

 

[psneeld]

.......and their budget comes from the Florida State General Fund and other grants.

Budget

Budget

myfwc.com

View attachment 158348

I had heard somewhere that $1 dollar or similar out of every registration goes to at least some of the derelict boat removal. Sure if it all goes into one pot it's hard to tell..... but if they take a certain percentage of registration money and ear market for derelict removal........

 

[mvweebles]

I had heard somewhere that $1 dollar or similar out of every registration goes to at least some of the derelict boat removal. Sure if it all goes into one pot it's hard to tell..... but if they take a certain percentage of registration money and ear market for derelict removal........

I think you're right. Or there was a proposal to do that. Sort of sucks that the good actors pay for the bad actors, but at least the people who enjoy the water are paying to clean it up.

Peter

 

[HeadedToTexas]

There is an important difference between spending a few months at anchor in a warm and beautiful place and squatting on public land. Are not virtually all of the "eyesore" types squatting with no intention of moving on or keeping up their vessel?

Right or wrong, virtually all public land has some limit on how long you can stay. BLM, National Forest, National and State Parks all have limits. Why would water be any different?

 

[CaptTom]

I agree something has to be done, and to me some sort of time limit seems most reasonable.

BUT... I don't like to see the waste disposal issue used as a false "cause" in itself. That problem can be addressed simply by enforcing existing laws. Going down that path reminds me of NIMBYs who suddenly get concerned about environmental issues or native burying grounds or whatever when someone proposes building something which they don't want in their sight lines.

Let's be real about the core problem: People staking out a permanent claim on a patch of water which should be managed by the state for the benefit of all citizens.

 

[mvweebles]

I agree something has to be done, and to me some sort of time limit seems most reasonable.

BUT... I don't like to see the waste disposal issue used as a false "cause" in itself. That problem can be addressed simply by enforcing existing laws. Going down that path reminds me of NIMBYs who suddenly get concerned about environmental issues or native burying grounds or whatever when someone proposes building something which they don't want in their sight lines.

Let's be real about the core problem: People staking out a permanent claim on a patch of water which should be managed by the state for the benefit of all citizens.

I agree - the waste issue is a false flag argument. The rich condo owners didn't give a damn about water quality until they bought an expensive place and saw PoS boats out there. And they don't care what happens 500 yards up or down, only the "waste" from the boats they see.

I'm probably closer to this issue than most. I still don't fully understand why it's okay for people to squat on public lands. If I tried to do this in a national forest, I'd be forcibly removed. But we live in a world where small threats of lawsuits can constipate small governments. Believe it or not, those squatters may not have much, but they have enough to hire an attorney.

I hope y'all have expressed yourselves in the poll that started this thread. I obviously have my opinion. But I respect others. Please make your voice heard.

Peter

 

[O C Diver]

The carrot and the stick.

In Carolina Beach, they have a very nice protected mooring field. In addition to nice bath houses at one dock, dinghy docks in another area to go to the grocery store and restaurants, they also have a dock for pumpouts and filling water tanks. From memory (which can be faulty), this dock is for pump and water only with a significant penalty for anything else. While it's theoretically for the mooring field occupants, I'm sure those anchoring out aren't prevented from using it (no attendant and a very reasonable harbor master).

It seems to me, that there are areas of Florida that could have a pumpout dock with water and dumpsters. Lots of pluses to this for those living on the minimum who can appreciate the generosity. For those unwilling to be civilized and follow the basic rules of a civilized society, crush them like a cockroach.

Ted

 

[psneeld]

The BLM lands I looked at on the RV trip I am currently on...3.5 months from Fl to Seattle area to Yellowstone to FL all had 2 week stary limits.

The sanitation issue is actually a good tool for state, county and local LE officials as it is probable cause at the federal level/law. Where and how they apply it can get involved....but it is a lead in to action.

As far as squatting on "water" or using a public resource...that's not a simple subject. One can argue that commercial fishing is the profit from a public resource (overly simplified I know).

I would be OK if the same time limits and fees applied to anchoring that the Governments (after they divide up the waterways) charge people using Gov't lands. Enforcement will be a trick though in many areas. The crowded anchorages and town anchorages full of derelicts...not so much if the laws had teeth and didn't drive LE departments crazy.

 

[Delta Riverat]

I'm sure a free public pump out dock would be a boon to low income folks.

But not if their boat don't run and can't make it to the dock.

 

[mvweebles]

The carrot and the stick.

In Carolina Beach, they have a very nice protected mooring field. In addition to nice bath houses at one dock, dinghy docks in another area to go to the grocery store and restaurants, they also have a dock for pumpouts and filling water tanks. From memory (which can be faulty), this dock is for pump and water only with a significant penalty for anything else. While it's theoretically for the mooring field occupants, I'm sure those anchoring out aren't prevented from using it (no attendant and a very reasonable harbor master).

It seems to me, that there are areas of Florida that could have a pumpout dock with water and dumpsters. Lots of pluses to this for those living on the minimum who can appreciate the generosity. For those unwilling to be civilized and follow the basic rules of a civilized society, crush them like a cockroach.

Ted

I agree 100% - incentives and displacement. My town - Madeira Beach - happens to have a municipal marina so has the business infrastructure to do a bunch of things. There's plenty of room for a sizeable mooring field of probably 25-40 moorings. And there's already a good place for a town dinghy dock that would be an easy walk to many restaurants and a trolley that runs along Gulf Blvd, the 25-mile beach road that connects Clearwater Beach (north) to Pass-a-Grille (south). And there's now an express bus to downtown St Petersburg - for around $3/person, you could be at the Dali Museum in downtown St Pete in 45-mins. Town has no interest.

I don't know why there are so few mooring fields on the ICW. They seem to work well along the Atlantic seaboard area and New England of course.

Peter

 

[O C Diver]

I don't know why there are so few mooring fields on the ICW. They seem to work well along the Atlantic seaboard area and New England of course.

On the AICW in Florida, I think there are 5 or 6 from the Georgia line to Stuart. Not all are visible from the channel. Atleast 2 on the Okeechobee Waterway way (an ICW).

Ted

 

[PierreR]

I don't know why there are so few mooring fields on the ICW. They seem to work well along the Atlantic seaboard area and New England of course.

Peter

Mooring fields work well every place they have winter. Floating in ice cubes really keeps the number of derelicts down.

 

[mgreen]

In washington state I pay an annual derelict boat tax when I license my boat and an annual derelict rv tax included in my rv tabs. If I try to park my rv in many places I will be towed
because it has current tabs and I have a home address it is registered to. If it were beat up and no tabs and dumping sewage onto the street, it becomes untouchable and will not be towed from any location because it can be called someone's home. I am all for freedom, but there should still be consequences. I have personally not seen true homeless in rvs in my area, just a drug lifestyle. I believe this is the direction that it is going for boats in my area. I have personally known people who choose a boat to live on for the sole reasons that it is cheap enough so they can support their drug habit. One 25 year old woman who was drugging has been living for the last 3 years on a 24' sailboat anchored out. My wife and I have tried to intervene and move her in the right direction but have lost track of her in the last couple of months.

I have deleted a bunch of what I was writing because it was turning into a rant. I will leave it at this.

 

[Insequent]

It is one of those issues where there needs to be a balanc, and it is area-specific. The Gold Coast in Queensland is very likely analogous to crowded waterways in Florida. I've attached a link to the current rules. Enforcement of rules has been patchy, but I think is getting more consistent.
Mooring | Anchoring

I think the general view is that the rules are reasonable and necessary.

The issue is in part semi-derelict boats. But also well-cared for boats that are unable to secure a marina berth due to there being too few marinas. As well as marina berths being expensive to buy or rent. For my 55' LOA to buy a berth, if you can find one, will be $125k - $200k. To rent is $1300-$1500 (or more) per month, and generally with a surcharge where liveaboard is available or permitted. It often isn't permitted.

 

[ranger58sb]

Often the owners are from out of state or cannot be traced, thus the wreck ends up a liability. Even if onwers can be traced, unless they are local a supoena cannot be enforced to make them do anything unless the vessel obstructs navigagtion.

Might be a useful tool to immediately and positively identify ownership whenever a boat shows up in an anchorage. A process for that process would need resources, but perhaps the cost would be less compared to what might be recoverable when boats go downhill.

I suspect there might be some significant "waiting" time involved in most current situations, where the municipality hangs loose while search time, notification time, warning time... passes. Maybe positive ownership info could short-circuit some of that: 2 weeks notice (to the known owner), no response, haul it, recycle it. (Bit of an exaggeration, but...)

A "check-in" process that identifies ownership could conceivably also ascertain a given boat's sanitation capabilities... to guide expectations about movements to pump-outs or whatever. Treatment system, or not? Et cetera.

This would all be more intrusive than we are used to. Possibly not "sale-able" due to that... Not a lot different than typical marina check-in these days, though... with boat info, owner's name, insurance required, and so forth...

Perhaps if more municipalities install mooring fields -- displacing anchorages -- check-in would automatically become more marina-like...

Rambling...

-Chris