On Wednesday, December 5, 2012, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission approved, with several modifications (see below), the proposed anchorage regulations for Martin County and Stuart, Florida. This is one of the five sites previously approved to take part in the Florida Pilot Mooring Field Program. As any of you familiar with this long, drawn-out process already know, the approved sites are given the right to regulate anchorage in their waters, IF AND ONLY IF THE REGULATIONS ARE APPROVED BY THE FWC!
It is not stretching the truth at all to report that this particular set of regulations is the most controversial of the five sites participating in the pilot program, with the possible exception of St. Augustine’s 30-day anchoring limit, which was ultimately shot down by the FWC. The Salty Southeast Cruisers’ Net has published several previous articles on the proposed Martin County regulations (see /?p=100456).
Now, with some FORTUNATE modification inserted by the FWC, these regulations have been approved, and will almost certainly go into effect shortly. ALL CRUISERS WHO EVER PLAN ON ANCHORING IN THE STUART, JENSEN BEACH REGION WILL WANT TO READ THE TEXT BELOW, AND LEARN ALL THERE IS TO KNOW! (See, I was a poet, and you did not know it!).
First, let’s hear from our “man on the scene in Stuart, Florida, maritime attorney Captain Ted Guy:

Basically, the City of Stuart is banning anchoring within 150 ft of the existing mooring field and other “marine infrastructure” (docks, seawalls, etc.) throughout the city limits (that provision is probably reasonable) and will require anchored cruisers in the City Limits to demonstrate navigable mobility of their boats and pumpout receipts every ten days.
In the Manatee Pocket, anchoring will only be allowed in the charted small anchoring triangles (see the third map I sent you in October with the draft ordinance). The ordinance does not provide the exemption for live-aboards provided by Florida Statutes, an obvious legal omission.
W.E. “Ted” Guy, Jr.

And, here is the official press release from the FWC:

Meeting Wednesday in Apalachicola, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) approved, with contingencies, the city of Stuart/Martin County’s proposed ordinance for the anchoring and mooring pilot program coordinated by the FWC.
The ordinance is in response to the Florida statute allowing a specific number of local governments to adopt regulations on anchoring and mooring vessels in their jurisdiction. This pilot program provides an opportunity for the FWC and the Florida Legislature to evaluate the subject more fully.
`The goal of the anchoring and mooring pilot program is to explore potential options for regulating the anchoring or mooring of non-live-aboard vessels outside the boundaries of public mooring fields,’ said Maj. Jack Daugherty, leader of the FWC’s Boating and Waterways Section. `The FWC’s role is to provide consultation and technical assistance on the issues.’
Local governments for the five communities participating in the pilot program are responsible for soliciting public input and adopting local ordinances within their jurisdictions. These ordinances must be approved by the FWC and will continue to be evaluated by the FWC and the Legislature. FWC staff members have been attending the sites’ public-input meetings to provide information on the pilot program. Two meetings were held in Martin County on the topic.
Rather than writing an ordinance that was countywide, city of Stuart/Martin County participants established four areas in the county in which the ordinance would be effective. They selected one in the Indian River, two in the St. Lucie River, and one in the area referred to as Manatee Pocket in Stuart.
In the St. Lucie and Indian River locations, the ordinance prohibits anchoring and mooring within 300 feet of the mooring field and other maritime infrastructure. In the Manatee Pocket location, the prohibition applies to the whole area except within provided anchoring areas.
`There is a ‘˜safe harbor’ exception in all areas for vessels anchored temporarily due to severe weather or mechanical issues,’ Daugherty said.
For vessels that have been anchored in any of the areas for 10 consecutive days, the ordinance requires vessel operators to document that they can successfully navigate under their own power by visiting designated locations. After that first documentation of operability, they must also demonstrate compliance every six months.
`This will ensure that boats can operate safely and will also deter abandoned or derelict vessels,’ Daugherty said. `This protects the marine environment and keeps waterways safe for all to use.’
A final part of the ordinance is a requirement to demonstrate compliance with marine sanitation laws by providing proof that marine sanitation devices have been pumped out within the 10 previous days.
Commissioners discussed the ordinance, asked questions and heard public comment, ultimately approving it with a few contingencies, including reducing the buffer distances in the St. Lucie River areas to 150 feet while still restricting anchoring between the Stuart mooring field and eastern shoreline. Commissioners also required the removal of the Indian River location until the associated mooring field is constructed.
With this approval, the county can adopt the ordinance to make it effective. All ordinances adopted under the pilot program expire on July 1, 2014, unless re-enacted by the Legislature.
The ordinances for St. Augustine, St. Petersburg, Sarasota and Monroe County have already been approved.
For more information on the anchoring and mooring pilot program, visit MyFWC.com/Boating or call 850-488-5600.

Thanks to Mr. Guy and all the others that commented it appears the approved regulations are much more reasonable than the original proposal. However, as usual, the law is poorly written. For example, if one arrives, then anchors for 10 days, haven’t you already demonstrated that you can navigate your vessel? How else would you get there? If you sail away for a week and then return for another 10 days do you have to once again demonstrate you can navigate by going to a designated location? Do these laws also apply to boats on moorings? If not, why not? Also, how can one provide proof of pumpout if you don’t pumpout’“using a composting or incinerating system, or a porta pottie? This just further adds confusion to the hodge-podge of anti-anchoring ordinances in Florida that most boaters will be completely unaware of.
John Kettlewell

We have a 75 gallon holding tank. If we pump it every ten days, to get our money’s worth we are going to have to invite many, many guests aboard to take a’¦
Chris

My inclination is to plan on sailing through those areas, i.e. stop before & after; there are enough challenges without jumping through hoops and being hasselled. Current state law allows recovery of costs for ‘˜derelict’ vessels which go down or threaten safety of others from the registered owners. my 2c.
David Hendry

How will boats with composting heads comply with the proof of pump out requirement?
Dick Mills

Some composting toilets are classified as `portable’ just like a porta potty. Because they don’t have holding tanks, they are exempt from such regulations. Believe it or not, the USCG prefers portable systems if it is possible and reasonable to use. Portable systems are much more difficult to discharge illegally because to discharge them you have to be conspicuous. You can’t simply go below and open a valve out of sight. Additionally, with a portable composting toilet, there is no urgency to empty the collection container and therefore no need to break the law.
Sandy Graves

Hard to demonstrate pump-out when the Martin County pump-out boat doesn’t show up.
H Mason

Being the only person aboard my boat with a 50 gal. holding tank, I only need a pump out twice a month, at the most. I last pumped out at Stuart Loggerhead Marina when I fueled and the receipt had no mention of a pump out. I keep a pump out logbook. If a logbook is sufficient for the FAA , why not for Martin County?
Don Neville

We are planning a cruise south from the Chesapeake Bay through Florida this winter (2013). How can we find out where we can or cannot anchor in the Boater Friendly State of Florida. Thanks
Raymond W. Smith, Fire Dog

I guess Stuart will just have to served notice of intent to suit for violation of civil rights afet the first ticket is issued to a composting boat, interesting politicians in that area, dumb would be a compliment.
Dennis McMurtry

Fiasco in Stuart, Florida/Martin County
An Article/Editorial
by
Claiborne S. Young
Editorial Director
Salty Southeast Cruisers’ Net

Back in 2009, when intense negotiations were underway to help pass the new Florida Anchoring Law, it was with more than a little trepidation that the Salty Southeast Cruisers’ Net, Boat/US, the Florida MIA, and the SSCA, reluctantly agreed to support a compromise proposal for a Florida Pilot Mooring Field Program, IN RETURN FOR COOPERATION FROM THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES TO INCLUDE CRUISER FRIENDLY LANGUAGE IN THE BILL, in particular, modifying the definition of “live-aboard vessels.”
The primary reason for all this nervousness was a deep suspicion that some communities/counties that were approved as one of the pilot mooring field sites, might try and use this program to run off anchored cruisers almost entirely.
Fortunately, that has largely not happened, but, then again, that’s probably due more to hard work by Boat/US, BARR (Boater’s Anchoring Rights and Responsibilities) and the Cruisers’ Net (among others), rather than any far seeing, cruiser friendly planning on the part of the communities involved in the program.
Well, I guess there had to be at least one really bad apple in this proverbial barrel, and that entity is Stuart, Florida and surrounding Martin County.
Their proposed anchorage regulations, which have twice been rejected by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC), would basically outlaw anchoring everywhere in Stuart, and the surrounding waters of the St. Lucie and Indian Rivers, except for a small plot in Manatee Pocket, which is, by the way, is not within easy striking distance of all the businesses and dining attractions in downtown Stuart (though there is a West Marina and another set of restaurants within dinghy distance of the Manatee Pocket proposed anchorage).
On top of all this, these proposed regulations are Draconian in their penalties, and are so complex as to allow almost unlimited interpretation by local/county officials and law enforcement officers!
THE CRUISING COMMUNITY MUST UNITE TO OPPOSE THIS PLAN! TO BE BLUNT, IT MUST BE STOPPED!

Opposition (or any other sort) comments can be registered at:

http://www.myfwc.com/boating/anchoring-mooring/stuart-martin/comments/

You can read the LENGTHY proposal in its entirely at:

http://www.myfwc.com/boating/anchoring-mooring/stuart-martin/

Maps of the Anchoring Ordinance can be found at:

http://www.myfwc.com/media/2408672/StuartMartinmap2.pdf

Also, may we URGE you to take the time to read the comments from fellow cruisers below. Captain Ted Guy is the former president of the Treasure Coast Marine Industries Association, and a Stuart based attorney who perhaps knows more about the Florida anchoring issue than anyone else in the Sunshine State. Ms. Virginia P. Sherlock is a cruiser and attorney based in Stuart, and, of course, Captain Charmine Smith Ladd is a special reporter for the Salty Southeast Cruisers’ Net, and the founder of BARR (Boater’s Anchoring Rights and Responsibilites).
Absorb all of this, AND THEN REGISTER YOUR OPPOSITION BY FOLLOWING THE LINK ABOVE.

Claiborne,
This is one of the biggest power grab boondoggles I’ve seen in Stuart for a long time. Read it, download the maps, and imagine how it’s trying to encompass Live-Aboards (specifically exempted by the authorizing statute Sec. 327.4105 F.S.) and all vessels.
I think the FWCC is more or less on our side in this. Twice they have rejected the ordinance for hearing, but the County and City have not cleaned it up to conform to the law.
W.E. “Ted” Guy, Jr.

Claiborne: Here is the FWCC’s summary:
http://myfwc.com/boating/anchoring-mooring/stuart-martin/

It would affect cruisers staying in Martin County or the City of Stuart waters for ten days or more. It uses the word “vessel” repeatedly without pointing out that live-aboards are exempt under the authorizing statute, sec. 327.4105 F.S.
It covers all waters in the City Limits and some County waters West of the City, waters off Jensen Beach within 1,000 ft of the shore, and the Manatee Pocket, ie: all the favorite, desirable waters for anchoring in our county and city.
In effect, it would force cruisers to rent moorings in the City mooring Field and the proposed and permitted Jensen Beach mooring field, or anchor in very small areas of the Pocket. The ordinance is over broad, overly complex, vague, and much more broad than the authorizing statute ever contemplated.
Our County Commission passed it in response to complaints by waterfront property owners who don’t like to see boats anchored near their homes.
Public comments are due at FWCC by Nov. 5th; then about the ninth they will publish a summary of comments and the staff recommendation. FWCC will vote it up or down next spring.
W.E. “Ted” Guy, Jr.

Public Comment on proposed Stuart/Martin County Anchoring and Mooring Ordinance
The proposed ordinance raises serious concerns that must be addressed by FFWCC before approving the draft, including
(1) Over-reaching and over-broad regulations that go far beyond the intent of the pilot program;
(2) Complex and difficult to follow language that makes the ordinance hard to understand and, therefore, extremely difficult to comply with;
(3) Overly harsh penalties, making it a crime that can result in incarceration for failure to comply with what is an extremely convoluted ordinance enacted as part of a two-year experimental program; and
(4) Reducing access to navigable waters by failing to provide alternatives to the boating public.
The revised draft of the proposed ordinance has not addressed the critical issue of over-reaching by the local jurisdictions which appear intent on prohibiting anchoring or mooring in waters of the state throughout Martin County.
Of the three pilot program areas ‘“ part of the St. Lucie River within the City of Stuart and Martin County, part of the Indian River in the Jensen Beach area, and the Manatee Pocket ‘“ only one area has an existing operational mooring field (the City of Stuart).
The ordinance does not require an operational mooring field to be available but rather prohibits anchoring and mooring in an area where a mooring field has been issued permits but has not been constructed and is not likely to be constructed before the pilot program ends (since there is widespread public objection to the project and no dedicated funding source).
This allows the County to prohibit anchoring and mooring in an area where there is no alternative for local recreational boaters, fishermen or cruising vessels.
There is no justification for prohibiting anchoring or mooring within 1,000 feet of the western shoreline of the Indian River Lagoon. In local discussions, residents have been unable to determine exactly where the 1,000-foot boundary is. How can boaters traveling through the area figure out where the regulated area is when locals can’t identify the boundaries? This is especially troublesome since there’s no existing mooring field within the pilot program area.
Even the 300-foot boundary set out for the City of Stuart pilot program area and the Manatee Pocket area are excessive and confusing. Since there is no existing mooring field in the Manatee Pocket area, the ordinance requires a mooring permit issued by the Department of Environmental Protection or restricts anchoring and mooring to two defined `anchor areas’.
The proposed ordinance clearly has gone far afield of the intent of the pilot program to promote establishment and use of public mooring fields and promote public access to waters of the state. The ordinance is designed to limit public access, even criminalizing non-compliance, which may have a chilling effect on boaters and even day fishermen who may be caught in the extremely wide net of these proposed regulations.
The proposed ordinance also is counter to the statutory pilot program’s intent in that it appears to apply to live-aboard as well as non-live-aboard vessels. The Legislature established the pilot program `to explore potential options for regulating the anchoring or mooring of non-live-aboard vessels outside the marked boundaries of public mooring fields.’ Section 327.4105, F.S. The law provides that `a county or municipality selected for participation in the pilot program may regulate by ordinance the anchoring of vessels, other than live-aboard vessels . . . outside of a mooring field.’
The Stuart/Martin County proposal appears to apply to live-aboards, using the pilot program as a means of prohibiting live-aboard vessels throughout the pilot program areas. The proposed ordinance does not meet the intent of the pilot program to regulate anchoring or mooring of non-live-aboard vessels.
The proposed ordinance is convoluted, establishing different regulations for the three separate pilot program areas, and extremely difficult to understand. The revised version of the proposed ordinance has not addressed concerns that were previously raised, such as providing criminal penalties in an experimental, short-lived ordinance that is clearly going to be subject to revision if the pilot program is renewed. A pilot program is, by definition, a `test program’ that should not include criminal penalties at this early stage when those who must comply with it are still trying to figure out the rules.
Some of the regulations set out in the ordinance appear to conflict with the mooring field operational plan that was previously adopted by Martin County and repeals anchoring restrictions within the Manatee Pocket which have been in place nearly 40 years.
While the City of Stuart qualified for inclusion in the pilot program by virtue of its operating mooring field, Martin County should not have been included in the program and has not made allowances for its failure to provide viable alternatives to recreational, sports, and cruising boaters and to avoid severe limitations on access to public waterways by drafting a proposed ordinance which contains ambiguous language and overly broad definitions and lacks any foundation in research or studies to support arbitrary distance restrictions.
The FFWCC should reject the Stuart/Martin County proposed ordinance as drafted.
Virginia P. Sherlock
LITTMAN, SHERLOCK & HEIMS, P.A.

Just received the public comment from Virginia Sherlock on behalf of those she is representing in Jensen Beach (see below). I agree wholeheartedly with her objections. Please consider this correspondence on behalf of all the members of Mariners Barr as being in agreement with her stance that the Stuart/Martin County proposal should be rejected. We here at Mariners Barr feel that Stuart/Martin County’s proposed ordinance is so blatantly uncooperative as far as meeting the objectives of the Pilot Program, that they should be removed as a participant from the Program altogether.
As we all are fully aware, there are many many problems with the ordinance as it is written. Stuart/Martin County is well aware also. We have gone through this process so many times without any real effort on the part of Stuart/Martin County to address those problems, I feel strongly they are wasting our time and yours.
The bottom line is that Stuart/Martin County has made no real effort to participate. They have made no real effort to address the issues the public and your Office has raised during this entire process. Their persistence in demanding excessive setbacks that have no basis for benefiting the public appear to be tailored for the purposes of prohibiting public access rather than promoting it. Their zeal for criminal penalties is quite disturbing. So much so that there is not a doubt in my mind that if given the opportunity, Stuart/Martin County would enact harsher penalties as soon as it is legal to do so (or even if not quite legal). Their disdain for boaters and cruisers is apparent. It is our stand that, given their history, Stuart/Martin County would more than likely overreach in the enforcement of any ordinances enacted and use them to harass and discriminate against the very public for which the Pilot Program has stated it would promote access.
Removing Stuart/Martin County from further participation in Florida’s Anchoring & Mooring Pilot Program is the right thing to do.
Respectfully submitted,
Charmaine Smith Ladd
Executive Director, Mariners Barr

when the municipalities and Cities realize where the power lies..watch out !! specially the last sentance
U.S. Law 33 USC 471 Chap 10
`The Secretary of Homeland Security is authorized, empowered, and directed to define and establish anchorage grounds for vessel in all harbors, rivers, bays and other navigable waters of the United States whenever it is manifest to the said secretary that the maritime or commercial interest of the United States require such anchorage grounds for the safe navigation’¦.’ {(personal comment) when the language `authorized, empowered, and directed’ is used it implies sole authority to perform the named act. The Boating Public is a definite minority and it is only by the laws which exist in this country can navigational rights be preserved.}
Let them have their way, then sue the ******** and do not settle, money talks,,bs walks ..
Dennis Mcmurtry

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS
4400 PGA BOULEVARD, SUITE 500
PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA 33410
JANUARY 31, 2012

PUBLIC NOTICE
Permit Application No. SAJ-2012-00131(IP-EGR)
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: This district has received an application for a Department of
the Army permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1344) and Section
10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. §403) as described below:
APPLICANT: Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners
Department of Environmental Resources Management
C/o Robert Robbins, Director
2300 North Jog Road, 4th Floor
West Palm Beach, Florida 33411
WATERWAY & LOCATION: The project is located in navigable waters of the United States,
in Lake Worth Lagoon, east of 1300 U.S. Highway 1, North Palm Beach (Section 4, Township
42 South, Range 43 East), in Palm Beach County, Florida.
Directions to the site are as follows: From I-95 in Palm Beach Gardens, exit PGA Boulevard and
head east to U.S. Highway 1. Head south on U.S. Highway 1 to the project site located in Lake
Worth Lagoon, east of 1300 U.S. Highway 1.
LATITUDE & LONGITUDE: Latitude 26.839° North
Longitude 80.055° West
PROJECT PURPOSE:
Basic: The basic project purpose is to enhance the aquatic environment.
Overall: The overall project purpose is to create seagrass habitat in eastern Palm Beach County.
PROPOSED WORK: The applicant proposes to cap approximately 42 acres of muck sediment
in a dredge hole (average depth -17 feet NAVD) area known as Turtle Cove with approximately
640,000 cubic yards of sand to create approximately 37.8 acres of seagrass habitat with an
elevation of -6 feet NAVD. The project includes signage for seagrass protection. The applicant
has not requested compensatory mitigation credit for the project.
Avoidance and Minimization Information: The applicant has provided the following information
in support of efforts to avoid and/or minimize impacts to the aquatic environment: The project
would result in improved aquatic habitat within the project area. Temporary construction
turbidity would be minimized through the use of turbidity curtains. The construction
methodology, including the construction of a submerged perimeter berm with subsequent fill
placed on the inside of the berm, would minimize turbidity in surrounding waters.
Compensatory Mitigation: The applicant has provided the following explanation why
compensatory mitigation should not be required: No impacts to seagrass or any other special
aquatic site are proposed. The project would result in a net increase in seagrass habitat based on
the success of similar projects completed by the applicant in Lake Worth Lagoon including the
Snook Islands Natural Area and the Ibis Isle Restoration Project.
EXISTING CONDITIONS: The project site consists of an open water dredge hole with an
average depth of -17 feet North American Vertical Datum (NAVD) and a minimum depth of -14
feet NAVD. The project site contains an average of 10 feet of muck sediment with no seagrass
based on project area substrate and depths. The existing area surrounding the project area
consists of open water, marinas, and residential/institutional development.
ENDANGERED SPECIES: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has determined the
proposal may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the endangered West Indian manatee
(Trichechus manatus) and would not result in an adverse impact to its designated critical habitat.
The Corps has received U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurrence with this determination
pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
The Corps has determined the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect
the endangered smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata), or the endangered/threatened swimming
sea turtles (Chelonia mydas, Eretmochelys imbricata, Lepidochelys kempii, Dermochelys
coriacea, Caretta caretta). The project would not result in an adverse modification of any
designated critical habitat for these species. The Corps will request National Marine Fisheries
Service’s concurrence with this determination pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act.
The Corps has determined the proposal would have no effect on any other listed threatened or
endangered species or designated critical habitat.
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT (EFH): This notice initiates consultation with the National
Marine Fisheries Service on EFH as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act 1996. The proposal would impact approximately 42 acres of unvegetated
muck/sand substrate utilized by various life stages of penaeid shrimp complex, reef fish, stone
crab, spiny lobster, migratory/pelagic fish, and snapper/grouper complex. Adverse impacts due
to construction would be temporary and the project would result in a net increase in seagrass
habitat. Our initial determination is that the proposed action would not have a substantial
adverse impact on EFH or Federally managed fisheries in the South Atlantic Region. Our final
determination relative to project impacts and the need for mitigation measures is subject to
review by and coordination with the National Marine Fisheries Service.
NOTE: This public notice is being issued based on information furnished by the applicant. This
information has not been verified or evaluated to ensure compliance with laws and regulations
governing the regulatory program. The jurisdictional line has been verified by Corps personnel.
AUTHORIZATION FROM OTHER AGENCIES: Water Quality Certification may be required
from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and/or one of the state Water
Management Districts.
Comments regarding the application should be submitted in writing to the District Engineer at
the above address within 30 days from the date of this notice.
If you have any questions concerning this application, you may contact Eric Reusch at the
letterhead address, by electronic mail at Eric.G.Reusch@usace.army.mil, or by telephone at 561-
472-3529.
The decision whether to issue or deny this permit application will be based on the information
received from this public notice and the evaluation of the probable impact to the aquatic
environment. This is based on an analysis of the applicant’s avoidance and minimization efforts
for the project, as well as the compensatory mitigation proposed.

Unsurprisingly, the proposal by the city of Marathon to outlaw anchorage on portions of Boot Key Harbor where formerly this practice was welcome, has elicited an outpouring of reaction from the cruising community. The volume of messages has grown so large, that we have moved all these many welcome notes here, and linked this page from the original posting concerning this topic, at:

/?p=80539

This appears to be a very informative and balanced article. Well done to Charmaine, please keep us up to date on this.
Phil Johnson

We spent five winters in Marathon on a mooring ball, met many great cruising friends and enjoyed our time there. However, last year we tired of the City Marina treating cruisers like naughty school children and scolding them on the morning radio net (I was one of the Net controllers one day per week). So this year we decided to try a winter elsewhere and are glad we did!
I wrote to the Chamber of Commerce to let them know that we won’t be back and that other cruisers we talk to are beginning to see Boot Key Harbor changing from a cruiser friendly place to being hostile to the year-round mooring residents and those who prefer to anchor.
Anchoring out in the open roadstead south and west of Boot Key in the winter season is at best uncomfortable and sometimes downright dangerous! Taking a chance on arriving to find the moorings all taken and being told I couldn’t anchor in Sister Creek or in the harbor until a mooring was available is NOT something that I would recommend to anyone.
Boot Key Harbor and the City Marina have lost us and others we know as customers already. Unless they change their current position on rates and anchoring restrictions they will lose more customers.
Larry Sherman
s/v Enchantress

Sad to see all of the changes going on down there. I used to skydive once a year down in Marathon and always wanted to stay a few months to revisit when I started in cruising.But for that price I can just dodge up to the Port Charlotte area and pay for a nice slip with shore power, good wifi, and all the perks and not have to worry I’d be waiting exposed in a harbor while room freed up. I stayed at Gasparilla last year and it was secure, extremely friendly and had a good work yard with reasonable prices.
From that area I have Cayo, sailing on Charlotte is divine, Ft Myers mooring and a quick motor across the Okeechobee waterway gives me access to the Bahamas.
I got into cruising to get away from the hassles of life, not add to them.
Mark

I am not always opposed to change, changes can be made in a good way. We did anchor in Boot Key for a week or so waiting on a mooring ball to come available. I do think that maybe the council could consider temporary anchoring in all areas suitable when the mooring fields and set up anchorage is full, so as not to drive away cruisers, while this would still prohibit, derelict boats from permanent anchorage in these other areas. But at the same time, the derelict boats are just going to occupy the set up anchoring field and fill it so that cruisers won’t be able to anchor there when they arrive. So I do understand the councils problem. I do hope that maybe they will consider some way of making it work for everyone. Marathon was one of our favorite spots to visit, and we did spend time at Marina’s there as well, but even those are full much of the time. Best wishes with the efforts here, we are not cruisers who wish to boy-cott, because of change or rules, but at some point, things do become inconvenient, and when that happens, it does slow the flow. Us included.
Capt. Clay

There are existing ordinances to rid Boot Key Harbor of Derelict boats however the are NOT ENFORCED! Not by the City of Marathon nor the Florida Maine Patrol nor by the Monroe County Sheriffs Office which has a patrol boat @ Marathon Municipal Marina. Any excuse by the town,county or state is only an admission of there own violation of there own existing laws.
Our Lord’s Blessing to All
Ed & Bonnie Spomer
S/V Almost Heaven

Thanks, Charmaine and SSECN for bringing this situation to our attention.
We last visited Marathon two years ago. When had a reservation at Sombrero Dockside marina, but when we arrived the boat in our slip had not left and we were forced to anchor out overnight in Sisters Creek until they left the next day. I’m not sure what I would have done if I had not been able to anchor in Sisters Creek. The mooring field was full. The marinas that could accomodate a boat of our size were all full, and it was too late in the day to head over to Newfound Harbor.
The city does, of course, have the right to charge whatever it chooses for slips, mooring balls and dinghy dockage. However, the isssue of anchoring and safety are another matter. Derelict boats can be handled with current regulations, so I still do not understand why the city would choose legislation to restrict anchoring that could cause a negative reaction from the crusing community and be potentially dangerous.
We had planned to cruise back to the keys next winter, but we will definitely be bypassing Marathon if this legislation is enacted.
Bill Root

I have been making ready to stay over in Marathon for the last two years, this new news is making me re think my plans. I am retired and on a budget. Being on the hook in more open water is not on my to do list. Maybe the islands are better. Regretfully,
Nick Leva

I have to say the current state of Marathon was shocking. Just took a nice group of sailing students on a week long cruise. Never had the time to anchor in Book Key Harbor before so I decided what a great time to visit and show some West Coast sailors how great the Keys were. Again, not having spent any time in Marathon, I always thought of it as one of the few real cruising friendly areas down here in the Keys, a little taste of what I had in the Carolinas and Chesapeake.
Big mistake. I was embarrassed for my clients. Not only were we harassed in the anchorage by some very derelict live aboard boaters, yelling and screaming while pounding down beers and smoking at 9am, but walking the streets was a big wake up call. I’ll never take any clients to Boot Key Harbor again. So sad to have to make that statement.
Being a sailing instructor, I am trying to show cruisers in training what our lifestyle is all about. How to get safely from destination to destination and how wonderful it is to pull into that funky, cool little down, dinghy up and have great time, or sit in the cockpit and watch the sun go down.
Marathon does need a massive clean up, as true of many Key’s anchorage areas. Real cruisers are getting a bad rap from all the derelict boaters. But penalizing the active cruising community is not the way to accomplish this.
Marathon I don’t want to give up on you but you have a long way to go.
Capt. Edana Long

We were just down at Marathon for a month in an RV, with a boat, and visited the harbor almost daily. There was always a 2 to 3 day waiting list for moorings. The parking places were nearly full. I can see the point of showering on shore, if the water is $.05 a gallon!

We did notice that boats seemed to be having difficulty getting anchors to hold’“and it may well be the type of anchor ‘“mostly Bruce type or Claw seemed to be having problems.
Bob Austin

My husband and I have visited Marathon the past 2 seasons, anchoring out for a few days before taking a mooring. We’ve had very positive experiences with both the local boaters and the cruisers and the sense of community we find here is what draws us back. Yes, there are those who live a different lifestyle than what we choose, but there is room here for us to coexist, and the general atmosphere of the community is one of support and friendship.
Cathy Dieter s/v Orion JR

The problem with derelict vessels can be resolved by having an Insurance requirement requiring Liability, wreck removal and polution coverage. The Certificate of Insurance could be required by the harbormaster within 48 hours after anchoring or the harbormaster could call the police to evict and or ticket the owner. Derelicks are uninsurable because a condition survey is always required prior to coverage being bound. This could be a requirement much like the DMV. Cruisers / snow birds are always aboard seaworthy boats because they need to be to cruise. Boat yards require coverage to haul so why can’t the state, municapality and local harbormasters require coverage as part of the FL registration?
Bill Owens

Localities can’t require equipment or insurance above and beyond what is state mandated’“that is a state-level requirement, just as car equipment requirements are set at the state level. If you start allowing localities to impose their own rules you would be constantly having to go through hoops every time you moved on to the next harbor, making cruising impossible. However, there are numerous laws already on the books that can deal with supposed `derelict’ boats, which is really more about derelict boat owners who have problems above and beyond any maritime rules. However, these laws are just not enforced: proper registration, proper sanitation equipment, proper boat equipment, anchor lights, etc. In the case of Marathon, sure there are some boats there that are marginal, but the real reason the city is making anchoring difficult and expensive is they have a shortfall in the marina and mooring budget and they want to force more people to pay for the moorings. It is about $$, and don’t let them throw a smoke screen over it by declaring it is about derelict boats, which they refuse to do anything about using the laws already on the books.
And, I should have added above that they may be solving the derelict boat problem by eliminating legal anchoring areas, but they are going to do it by chasing away legitimate tourist boaters who prefer to anchor out. They will lose money in the long run with that attitude. Cruisers don’t want to visit places that are a hassle’“they go cruising to get away from all that.
John Kettlewell

I have gone to Marathon many times over the last 15 years and enjoyed the friendly people and the area. I got to know many locals who treated me as if I were one of them. I sure hope that the fees for the mooring field don’t price me out of one of my favorite place.
Richard Bruning

Claiborne,
After reading the entire article, if possible, I would like to add that the three boats we were visiting with were 25 foot C Dorys, who anchored in Sister Creek until a mooring became available. It would have been very uncomfortable and on some days dangerous for this size of boat or smaller, to have anchored in the open roadstead to the West and South of Vaca Key. One night it blew up to over 30 knots–another night it was 50 knots in gusts.
Bob Austin

January 27th 2012

St. Petersburg: Nothing SAINTLY About It!
by Charmaine Smith Ladd

Somebody grab the Brasso: St. Petersburg’s halo is badly tarnished! For a city who sports the motto of “Always In Season,” with their proposed anchoring ordinances it appears St. Pete is attempting to replace their friendly olive branch with a thorny Russian Olive branch and advertise instead: “Always Off Season” to cruisers.

Essentially, what St. Petersburg’s ordinances propose is no access to downtown St. Pete for cruisers visiting the area. Is this the way to treat tourists? Imagine arriving by car and seeing a sign at the City Limits stating “Non-residents limited to a 72-hour stay.” Is this the Wild Wild West of old, “Hey stranger, we don’t like your kind ’round here. You best be out of town by sundown.” Am I in a time warp? Is this the Twilight Zone or is it the 21st century and someone has laced Florida’s oranges! It is all nothing short of madness.

To ban liveaboards from anchoring is totally contrary to FL Statute, in fact it is blatant discrimination. There is absolutely no justification for it. It is as if to say anyone who lives aboard their vessel and does not navigate the waters is guilty of something and considered an undesirable. This rationale will ultimately lead to Florida returning to the “No Liveaboards Allowed” status they had years ago in marinas. Most marinas allowed it, but on the down low so as not to get a rise of their neighborhood watch monitors. Many of us have worked very hard to quell the fears marinas had of those who chose to live aboard. If we allow this to be done to liveaboards, then cruisers will be next. Of this, I have no doubt. These municipalities want you either in the cookie cutter mode of society or you’re out. This is the 21st Century, but apparently Florida does not know times have changed. Prejudice is prejudice–be it against color, creed, or aimed at those who live aboard a vessel rather than a house on land. Ignorance always fuels such prejudice. This situation is no different in that regard.

What St. Petersburg will have to do is define when a cruiser becomes a liveaboard. This is the danger of their ordinance. Many cities already have tried to do this. Most recently in Stuart, the city in Florida that in 2008 had an ordinance stating after 72 hours at anchor a boat becomes a “Liveaboard.” It was immediately challenged and removed. This is the can of worms that St. Petersburg is opening again. It is an enormous problem. Derelict vessels has become “Derelict People.” Some cannot see through their greed and fear that either the derelicts will rob their house when they are gone, or that a boat on the water has a better view than they do! Either way, it’s ridiculous.

The Pilot Program is perpetuating myths that allow those who only really want a clear view of the horizon a manner by which to kill the dream of living aboard. There are no other reasons as the excuses drummed up simply do not wash. We all know that millions of gallons of raw sewage gets dumped into Florida waters quite routinely. The septic systems for the homes that built where there used to be swamp (basically all of Florida) are not adequate and constantly seep or spill over into Florida’s waters. Sewage from boaters is nothing in comparison. Even the Department of Environmental Protection does not blame boaters for the pollution of Florida’s waters: they know better. We have orange groves that use fertilizers that pollute our waters, golf courses don’t stay green naturally. These pollutants all come from LAND. Should we as boaters begin to demand golf courses and orange groves be banned and houses torn down because they are the largest contributors to pollution in Florida waters? That would be absurd, would it not?

Now that the cat is out of the bag on the ridiculousness of using boater sewage as a health issue that should be regulated, the powers that be are no longer using it. Yet it still remains on the Pilot Program agenda as an objective with which to be dealt. That is irresponsible, in my opinion, as it is misleading and arguably an untruth. So that takes us to the derelict and abandoned boat problem.

If only these areas would deal with that very real problem: derelict vessels. Derelict vessels most often are those that have been stored for years. You know the “fixer uppers” that people can’t seem not to buy but purchase and let it for years. At some point, someone takes it off their hands for a few dollars and it continues to sit. Out of sight, out of mind. It sits there and rots. Most of these stored vessels are owned by those who live on land.

There is a lot of ignorance about the lifestyle of those who live aboard be they cruisers or not. As if those who do are an alien species to be eradicated. The freedom to choose one’s lifestyle is there for everyone. Sure, there are bad apples in every walk of life…as we all know, there are millions more on land than on the water, yet severely restricting or ridding waters of inhabited boats will make the world a better place? It is laughable.

Rather than resort to blanket ordinances that infringe on the inalienable rights of others in their pursuit of happiness, those who complain about boaters need to realize they do not own the water. Their ordinances are Constitutionally unsound because there are laws in place to handle those who break the law — be they on the water or on land. USE THEM. But give someone an inch and they’ll take a nautical mile! The adage doesn’t quite go that way, but tailoring it to make a point here certainly fits.

To the powers that be in St. Petersburg, you are not listening to your public. It is evident to me that the waters of St. Petersburg are being held as if owned by those who live in homes there. If we allow such reasoning to go unchecked, waters held in the public trust for use by the public will be gated and available only to those in similar tax brackets — just as their land communities are. It will never end.

The Pilot Program, in my opinion, has done far more harm than good for the State of Florida. We are throwing the baby out with the bath! The remainder of the States are laughing at us…one of the oldest Ports in the U.S. should know by now how to get it right and be an example of how things can work amicably between sailors and landlubbers. But noooo. The world must think mainland Florida has lost its mind. You can’t kill sailing and living aboard, people…remember, it’s how you got here!

Tourists are tourists, commerce is commerce, and effectively your proposed ordinances are saying “We don’t want you here.” If you say that to citizens of the US, what do you say to foreign visitors? It’s shameful. President Obama is pushing hard to tout America as THE place for tourism. I don’t think St. Petersburg got the memo. So suck it up and get out the Brasso. Restore the saintly shine that halo of St. Petersburg and let it be the Port of the PUBLIC. Shake out your Unwelcome Mat and replace it with a Welcome Mat! Live up to your motto: “Always In Season.”

Charmaine Smith Ladd, SSECN Special Correspondent & Representative
Executive Director, Mariner’s BARR (Boaters’ Anchoring Rights & Responsibilities)
csmithladd@marinersbarr.org

Great report! The sad thing is that the laws they propose don’t solve the problems they say they are worried about. Derelict boats aren’t anchored in downtown St. Pete, and in any case existing laws can and should be used to take care of them. All these laws do is impact legitimate transient boaters who wish to visit St. Pete. I have read elsewhere that occupancy in their mooring field is very low’“this is also a push to try to force people to pay for those moorings.
John Kettlewell

Way to go Charmaine,
Thank You,
John Connon
s/v Donita

Thank You !!
Mike Cline

I am very happy to hear the news, we will be cruising Fla waters next fall and this news is very welcome indeed. After reading about the history and cruising opportunities in the St Augustine area its nice to be able to anchor off some of the time and 30 days is a good way to stop people dropping off their unwanted boats and causing more problems for honest cruisers.
Gary Holtze

I think I speak for many cruising captains. If St Augustine, or any other Florida town, makes it difficult for us to visit, we just simply won’t visit ‘“ and won’t spend any money there. We’re all rather tired of these restrictions and Florida police boats pulling us over, seeking an excuse to give us a $150 ticket to boost agency incomes. There are plenty of attractive waterway towns on the East Coast or Great Loop which welcome boaters at many free docks, realising that we attract tourism overall not the reverse. The best way to change Florida law is simply not to go there.
Arnold Parkinson

A big thank you to all those who fought hard to make this decision a reality. After serving this country for four years in the military to protect our freedom it is good to see that at least some of them are still there for us to enjoy.
James Angelf

Way to go! Let’s keep the pressure on these people until they leave us alone. it is good that the fwc is listening to us. 30 days isn’t too bad a deal, probably won’t be enforced unless the boater in question is a problem anyway.
Pete Shaw

Let have big round of applause for Captain Ladd. Thanks so much for being there for us Florida boaters. And congratulations!
Len Krauss,
Punta Gorda FL

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Charmaine Smith Ladd and Bonnie Basheim for their defense of cruiser’s rights and also to Cruisersnet for reporting the events.
Stewart Force

This is welcome of course, and congratulations to the cruisers everywhere who spoke up, but it’s small beans in the greater scheme that is happening here.
There is virtually no place left to anchor in St. Augustine anyway and the issue of the hold harmless clause negating boaters’ insurance wasn’t addressed. Boaters taking a mooring in St. Augustine ‘“ or anywhere in Florida for that matter ‘“ will not be insured should a mooring fail.
And there are much more onerous fights ahead of us ‘“ we’ve lost Manatee Pocket and Vinoy Basin in St. Petersburg as anchorages for example. Manatee Pocket might yet be salvageable if the FWC refuses to grant Stuart its 300 foot setoff, but Vinoy is gone, leaving no place convenient to downtown St. Pete to anchor.
This fight is far from over and the hardest part is yet to come.
Wally Moran

That is great news! Now, if everyone can try to send a comment to Stuart/Martin County before their next meeting on November 22 that would be very helpful. They are proposing no anchoring within 300 feet of shore in a large area, resulting in the total elimination of anchoring within Manatee Pocket, along with other onerous stuff.
John Kettlewell

What happens if a boat remains anchored for 30 days, but instead of leaving the area, ties to a dock (or slip or in the mooring-field) for a few days, then goes back on the hook? How many days must the boat be docked (or moored) before it can anchor for another 30 days, if it does not leave the area for a day?
Rick Ritchie

Thank you Charmaine & BOAT US, and the FWC for sticking up for the boaters!
Lupe Tucker

Hey Claiborne, great article, yes and a victory as well.
I do want to point out though, that the FWC approved 30 days of consecutive anchoring within a 45 day period. Does this not mean then that after 30 days of consecutive anchoring, one must leave for 15 days before returning?
Here is the news release we posted from the FWC on Jacksonville-Boating.com:
http://www.jacksonville-boating.com/magazine/boating_news/st_augustine_anchoring_ordinance_approved.shtml
Lupe Tucker

It’s a shame we have to go to such lenghts to keep our anchoring Rights. And they are rights, not privleges.
Inheritated from our forefathers!
Columbus anchored out without restrictions!!
Capt. Sterling

No question 30 days is better than 10 days but NOT a victory to celebrate! Two years from now the Florida League of Cities will say `Look, a 30 day anchoring restriction worked in St. Augustine’, now let every city impose a 30 day limit. NOT a good precedent to set!!
Now, I know Claiborne that you don’t approve of a boycott of the St. Augustine mooring field and businesses. But I still believe that is the only way to prove to the municipalities and business communities that treating cruisers and liveaboards poorly is bad for their economy. The city council members of St. Augustine did no cave in, this change from 10 days to 30 days was forced on them due to all of us pressuring the FWC. St. Augustine does not deserve cruisers supporting or paying for their mooring field or our money supporting their economy. I love stopping in St. Augustine as a tourist who arrives by boat or car, however, I still call on all of the seasonal boats heading south to bypass St. Augustine this year, leave their mooring field empty, anchor north of the city limits and the Villano Bridge, and call the city marina on the radio as you pass by heading south to let them know you are bypassing their fair city this year to spend your money in places that welcome cruising boats!
Henry Morgan

Grateful are we. Good News. (even tho we’re on the opposite side of the state of Fla. near Pensacola.)
Capt. M. L. Middleton

I also thank the 2 people who showed up for the St. Augustine meeting, but I am surprised there was not a greater number present. More towns and cities seem to think that their town will be better off by shooing away the cruisers. The only way that can stop is if cruisers make a point of appearing at these town meetings and making a stink about it. Why is Elizabeth City the only town that truly gets it’¦Cruisers are income for the city.
Howard Mitchell

Cruisers need to clean up their act. Holding tanks and pump out or head for the Wall St. group.
Roy

Congrats ‘“ I know it is not any easy fight.
I worked with Bonnie Basham in the Standing Watch vs Save the Manatee Club days. You couldn’t find a harder worker or better advocate for most any marine related cause. She’s the BEST.
Dick Smith