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 would need resources, but perhaps the cost would be less compared to what might be recoverable (or not) 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

 

[CaptTom]

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 think we mostly agree, but there is a bit more nuance there. I totally support using the existing laws as a tool for LE to address problem boats. I guess my quibble is with NIMBYs using it as an excuse to outlaw all anchoring which might spoil their precious view or whatever. As cruisers we shouldn't be supporting anyone with that attitude.

You are correct that this is a classic "Tragedy of the Commons" issue. The common resource in this case is good anchorages. Fishing is another good example. But in that case, there are already federal and state limits and regulations which at least attempt to address equity of access issues for everyone.

 

[psneeld]

Most states like Georgia that tried to severely limit anchoring got slapped down pretty quick in the legal courts and the court of public opinion. Because state law trumps local law, cities and town that have tried to enforce anchoring without the state wading in have basically failed....ala the clown that bought a dozen or so lasers and anchored them in front of his property to keep others from doing so.

Tuns out when the legislators find out the details, they don't want to limit true cruisers, just derelicts or people breaking existing laws such as sanitation, wrecking sensitive seabed, etc...etc...

I can argue all day long how commercial fishing is NOT fair in so many ways. I did most of my professional life and just too worn out on the subject to fight anymore as I saw things get worse rather than better for the last 40 years. I have plenty of friends on all sides of the argument. I can probably say the same about the anchoring argument.

 

[Hippocampus]

Huge difference between cruising boats and the population under discussion. What’s been discussed above would seem only applicable to the second group. Easy to make this not a NIMBY issue. As several have stated-mobility, hygiene and public health are appropriate ways to intervene. None would apply to the general cruising public.
My biggest bitch about commercial fishing is current set of regulations aren’t all that good in conserving the resource. With pelagic fish some of this is unavoidable. Fish we catch in the western Atlantic often spend time in the eastern Atlantic where regulation and enforcement is minimal. I now catch species we never saw before as the local waters warm in response to MMCC. The regs haven’t entirely caught up. Simple things like the bio pollution from fish farming and it’s impact on the biosphere.

 

[CaptTom]

I certainly didn't argue that fishing regulations are fair. Only that there is broad recognition that this is a common resource which needs to be managed with at least some consideration for fairness. I wouldn't dispute the fact that they're rarely successful.

This is the kind of recognition we need for transient anchoring as an essential aspect of navigation. Let violations of sanitation or other laws be the tools we use to identify problems, not the reason we need more legislation. That's a slippery slope. Once you join with the NIMBYs you risk getting regulations which help them more than they help the cruising community.

 

[Hippocampus]

Yup don’t know details but agree it’s not unlikely there’s existing laws that would serve. However look at this from the LEs point of view. They didn’t sign up as harbormasters to do this kind of work. Similarly I’m not sure if the legal instruments would allow CG to intervene. Would look forward to an opinion from someone more knowledgeable. So it likely would devolve to county or township LEs. Again this is an uneducated guess as to jurisdiction and needs an informed opinion. In any case a fair bit of work and likely expensive. First ascertainment of the violations. Second serving appropriate legal documents. Third towing and removing the boats. Fourth involving the court system so need for lawyers. Lastly disposal or repurposing the boats. Know in many of the rural areas along the AICW local resources are limited and this is a big expense. Don’t know how this would play out in Florida. In some areas of Florida abutters to the waterway have deep pockets. Perhaps in those areas they can defray the costs. But that’s not true universally. Abutters could reasonably say it’s not on their land so they shouldn’t incur the cost.
Devil is in the details

 

[PJHoffnet]

Stuart recently moved most of the permanently anchored, borderline derelict boats out of Manatee Pocket. There were so many of them that it had become nearly impossible to anchor there for transient cruisers. Manatee pocket is a key anchorage for cruising boats heading north or south up the ICW, through the GICW or heading to the Bahamas. It's one of only two or three anchorages in the area that doesn't get wrecked by wakes. There are also a lot of great waterfront businesses that appeal to transient boaters.

The county added moorings and two nice dinghy docks, it was a nice compromise and much needed, in my opinion.

The law just states that the boat has to move every 60 days, any functioning vessel should be able to conform to that law.

The mooring fields in Manatee Pocket were a great add. Unfortunately for me, they are limited to vessels under 40ft. The Jensen Beach Mooring field, a bit further north can handle longer boats, but have no protection from the long fetch of the Indian River.

 

[psneeld]

Once again, simple semantics clouds or attention to particulars has a lot to do with the thread.

Derelict vessels according to Bing search....
A derelict vessel is defined as1234:

• A vessel that is wrecked, junked, or in substantially dismantled condition upon any waters.
• A vessel that is no longer taken care of and poses a threat to people and the environment.
• A vessel that is broken or altered to such an extent that it will not keep afloat with ordinary care.
• A vessel that is either dismantled or in non-working condition, not able to be propelled under its own power, and has been abandoned in Florida’s waterways.

These definitions still don't differentiate between derelict and abandoned as a dwelling....full or even part time.

Even NOAA lumps them together yet does separate the two which leans towards my definition/understanding of the issues....

Abandoned and derelict vessels are vessels that are no longer taken care of and pose a threat to people and the environment. Though the legal definition of abandoned and derelict vessels varies, “derelict” often refers to vessels that are neglected with an identifiable owner, while “abandoned” vessels are those where the owner is unknown or has surrendered rights of ownership.

Vessels become abandoned and derelict for many reasons. Owners may neglect or abandon their boats when they can no longer afford to maintain them

So derelict vessels can be labeled as such but in reality can still be as or more habitable than some homes ashore that people live in and are not rousted.

So in my mind...about 2/3 of the boats that could be cleaned up rather quickly are truly the abandoned ones. Many are or nearly sunk and clearly not inhabited. Yet in many cases are of little or no environmental threat (compared to many other things), usually aren't polluting actively and aren't a big infringement on anchorage space. Many find them eyesore while some watermen might just say they add character along waterways...points of interest or curiosities.

The occupied (whether full or part time) derelicts are often the prime anchorage hoggers and are a bit more of an eyesore to many as they are usually in prominent locations that are prominent anchorages that many cruisers would love to stay in for at least a bit of time. These are the ones that can get sticky to "just remove". They may be only around a 1/3 of the problem.... plus or minus quite a bit, especially depending where.... but many of societal norms and laws may require a lengthy process of removing them if chasing them out only because they are "eyesores' to many.

The existing laws may be really the most effective and quickest way to probably get them turned into abandoned vessels and therefore more easily removed. Both state and federal agencies might be able to padlock the vessels for sanitation violations, lack of registration or the USCG for "unsafe voyage" parameters which in turn would just force the occupants to be homeless ashore, but may now quicken the removal process....if that is the way people wish it to proceed.

 

[Benthic2]

I think the simplest solution is to require a permit. Check in at the harbormaster's office, pay $10/day for a permit, and post that in your window. No/outdated permit = citation. Low level citations could be a minimum wage part time employee's task. Ideally, the permitting revenue pays for a used whaler and a few of labor per week. These "marine meter maids" become the eyes of law enforcement, who get involved after "X" permit violations. One advantage to this is it will illuminate the demand for the anchorage. If no one is asking for permits, there's no need to limit their duration. If the phone is ringing off the hook in July and August, you have a 2 week max. If you quantify demand, you can modulate the restrictions appropriately less onerously.

One angle to this that hasn't really been covered is what's best for the town and the local merchants. They want money spending tourists to come, spend money, and then make room for more tourists to come and spend more money. Ultimately that is what's best for the town, and that's what the town's leaders should be trying to achieve, not what's best for boaters. Waterfront property is a limited resource and a revenue generator for towns. They have a right, if not a duty, to maximize the revenue that can be generated (especially from non-locals!). As was once said by a great statesman: "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few" Unfortunately, boaters will always be "the few"

(WARNING....POSSIBLE TOS VIOLATION AHEAD.....)

I think one of the things that should be avoided at ALL COSTS, is to have laws intended for one thing, to be used for another thing. For example: There was a problem of people not having safety equipment so rules were created that says everyone has to have an anchor, horn etc. Now there is a problem with indigent people using resources unfairly, idyllic locations becoming dumping grounds, and waste pollution issues. It would be, in my mind, a HUGE over reach of government to apply the safety rules, to solve the crowded anchorages problem. I think approaches like that create ill will between residents and government, and show a sense of laziness and apathy by municipalities. Laws should be applied as they were originally intended.