Anchoring rights in Florida: Mariner's BARR

[JWalker]

Not to step on Captn Smollets dislikes......


but active captain is very much like that currently, without the focus on small boats.

but each anchorage/port/marina has user submited ratings, experiences and even local knowledge
that is updated whenever someone adds a rating.

All of our cruising guides were out of date, and only gave a suggested idea of possible stops.

We felt like AC was a much more indepth knowledge device.

Anywhere we hit wifi we would look on AC and try to lightly plan a week ahead, enter marks into our electronic charts, and then review the marks once we had been there.

I know its not fo everyone, but personally I really like it.  8)

[CharlieJ]

Must point out here, just for record-

St Pete has VERY limited room for anchoring. A mooring field would allow more boats in there (in the Venoy Basin). When  I was anchored in there, you were asked to notify the harbormaster if you were going to be over 72 hours (I think) Sign posted at the entrance.

It was a VERY uncomfortable spot to anchor, due to the winds blowing into the basin-like being in a washing machine. We left after two nights, simply because of that.

Much as I anchored, I seriously think mooring fields are going to become much more the norm in places with a lot of cruisers. I tended to pick up a mooring in many spots because of the side benefits- usually free showers, free dinghy dock privileges, free access to day rooms, laundry rooms ( coin op) and free pump outs. So in many spots it was worth it.

[Captain Smollett]

places with a lot of cruisers.

Yet another good reason to avoid it, then.

Poor, crowded anchorage, limited anchoring time, for-fee mooring the only option?  Not my kind of place.

I'll set my sights on places like Washington, NC.  Free dockage for 48 hours, cool, locally owned restaurants within walking distance, no limit on anchoring out (and dinghy docks available), pretty cool estuarium within walking distance, cool local history  (like being the birthplace of Cecil B. DeMillie and the first town named after George Washington).

Or, how about KR's Georgetown...again, no limits on anchoring, really nice people, rich local history, restaurants and other "night life" within walking distance, etc.

And both of those towns are surrounded by LOTS of local cruising that is off the beaten path...undeveloped marshes, back-water gunk-holes and a world to explore.

My question...why put up with, why seek out, crowded places with poor protection, draconian local laws and governmental oversight when there's a whole world out there without all this other "stuff" to deal with?

It's a very personal question for each to decide for himself.  I see my path, and St. Petersburg does not lie upon it.

[Captain Smollett]

Not to step on Captn Smollets dislikes......

No worries, mate!  Grog to you for posting your opinion of AC!  Glad it's useful for you.

[CharlieJ]

Kinda agree on St Pete- long way up the bay and we didn't find all that much to look at. Well- did see my first Banyan tree there and that was really kewl. Otherwise, over priced stuff.

Bradenton Beach was way better. Don't bother with Cortez, no matter what the cruising guide says.

Now I really enjoyed our ten days in DC. Anchored in Washington Channel, off the Capital Yacht Club. Dinghy dock, showers, WIFI, Day room-$15 per day. and a three block walk to the back door of the Smithsonian Castle. Washington Fish Market right there- buy fresh or pre cooked.

How else can you stay in downtown DC for $15 per day?

Mount Vernon  was very nice too, but DON'T try to tie to the dock-- $2.00 per foot :o, and you must be gone by 1700. We anchored off and dinghied in- no charge for the dink (at that time) the dockmaster was upset with the tie up fees, but he had to go along. Of course land parking is free >:(

[s/v Faith]

Ok, I wil be the voice of dissent here.   ;D

  I enjoyed Vinoy basin in St. Pete.  Specifically, it had excellent protection while I was there (3 or 4 days) and seems to be well sheltered from all but whatever winds Charlie had.   :)

  I enjoyed the museums, there was a free bus (stop near basin) that took you to anything you needed to see.  St. Pete is a pedestrian friendly city, and was a worthwhile stop... it is unfortunate that the derelicts have given another city reason to clamp down on another stop.  :P

[Captain Smollett]

Ok, I wil be the voice of dissent here.   ;D

  I enjoyed Vinoy basin in St. Pete.  Specifically, it had excellent protection while I was there (3 or 4 days) and seems to be well sheltered from all but whatever winds Charlie had.   :)

  I enjoyed the museums, there was a free bus (stop near basin) that took you to anything you needed to see.  St. Pete is a pedestrian friendly city, and was a worthwhile stop... it is unfortunate that the derelicts have given another city reason to clamp down on another stop.  :P

What are your thoughts, then, pertaining to the Pilot Program, at least as it pertains to St. Petersburg?

[CharlieJ]

Ok, I wil be the voice of dissent here.   ;D

  I enjoyed Vinoy basin in St. Pete.  Specifically, it had excellent protection while I was there (3 or 4 days) and seems to be well sheltered from all but whatever winds Charlie had.   :)

 

we had strong winds blasting right into the entrance- created about a 2, 2 1/2 foot chop all inside, which bounced off the concrete walls and made for a really terrible motion. I even re-anchored during the night ( after midnight) to try to get some relief, to no avail.

[Captain Smollett]

Another positive update from Florida.  Received this email last week:

The FWC has rejected the proposed ordinances for Stuart/Martin County. This is great news. Martin County had asked for a 1000 ft. buffer zone from shore, which leaves very little room for anchoring. The FWC stated that the ordinance as written is in conflict with some of the other state objectives and goals of the Pilot Program. Your hard work at writing letters is paying off! Your voices have been heard. Thank you for your continued support!

http://marinersbarr.org/fpp/docs/stuart/20120319-FWC-rejection.pdf

--Charmaine Smith Ladd

{emphasis added}

I may be in the minority in thinking this, but it sure seems to me that if it were not for those folks willing to go to the town meetings and continually fight it, the battle would be lost.

Existing State Law is not stopping the towns in the Pilot Program from TRYING to overstep the law; the only reason, it seem to me, that the FWC found this ordinance in conflict was because they were pressured to notice and acknowledge the conflict.

Uncontested, may it have passed with the conflict unnoticed?

I know the cruiser community is actively fighting it...going to the meetings, making phone calls, writing letters and emails.

My thanks go to those with boots on the ground doing the dirty work for the rest of us...

[JWalker]

My thanks go to those with boots on the ground doing the dirty work for the rest of us...

+1 8)

[Captain Smollett]

The Sarasota Ordinance is posted along with the request for comments.  The public meeting is scheduled for 10 May 2012, and the posting for comment will be up through 16 May 2012.

Here's a link to a summary and the actual ordinance:

http://www.myfwc.com/boating/anchoring-mooring/sarasota/

Note that they ask specifically not to send comments based solely on the summary, but to check the actual ordinance wording before commenting to the commission.

I've got to say that at least based on the summary, this makes a lot of sense.  They impose the restrictions that suit the town and homeowners while also including a 12 hour "window" to get right with the setbacks, logical exceptions (safe harbor, for example) and multiple observations required for enforcement.

I'm not claiming that I "favor" anchoring restrictions in the general case, but this ordinance seems at first blush to be a pretty darn fair balance for all interested parties.  It certainly seems to me to be the most balanced of the Pilot Program ordinances I've read so far.

Looking forward to other sailfar observations.

[gpdno]

I my opinion, I feel that it does look like a good compromise.  The regs seem to accommodate short term transient boater while reducing derelict vessels.  I'm down here in Venice and there are a number of abandoned sailboat floating out in the bay.  There are also a few folks who move there boat every few weeks.  Transient or even semi-perment boater are not an issue for me, but the derelict vessels are an eye sore.  I would be nice if there was an effective way for the state/city/county to remove boat that have been obviously abandoned by their owner.

[Chattcatdaddy]

Gave it the quick once over and it sems reasonable. Moving the boat once every ninety days for 3 days doesn`t sound to bad and would hopefully easily identify the abandoned derelicts. Also the provision for mechanical issues prevent the boat from moving seems like a good compromise.