FWC Derelict Enforcement Marathon

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by rwidman

This past Sunday and the Sunday before I watched a local salvage guy remove two derelict sailboats. Apparently the authorities figured out who owned them and threatened fines if they weren't removed.

This guy had a hydraulic trailer and towed the boats to the boat ramp and pulled them up on the trailer. He did this just for the value of the lead in the keels, no charge to the owners.

He complained to me that the authorities won't let him just salvage derelict boats without the owner's permission so when the owner can't be found, the boats just sit and break apart.

So now the local "ghost fleet" is down to two, three if you count the one that's sunk in the middle of the channel and marked by a rubber buoy.

As a kid I saw what was a crime for lead. A guy bought a beautiful, lines wise, Novi schooner of the Blue Nose type. Brought it to the States and was not aware of the Jones Act. He stripped the ballast and anchored her out to capsize and sink, since he couldn't use her as a fisherman. The CG or the Corps finally sent down a diver to cut off the masts.

It is hard to see any boat go that route.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by rwidman

I'm not sure if you are trying to be a smart ass, but the advantage of incarceration is that these criminals are not able to continue committing crimes while they are incarcerated.

Such hardened criminals much the homeless living in boxes and tents and the nearly homeless with an older retired anchorout, living the high life on $400/month. Best put them in prison where they can not been seen. Thing is being homeless should not be a crime. But it is quickly becoming one or so it seems. Such interesting times we live in.


BTW the BLM actually allows folks to park their trailers on public land for free. Mainly in the western USA. There is a time limit of 14 days, where the freedom loving RV'er moves to the next "Free" site.

Pretty much just like on the water. I do that very thing. and have for quite some time. Though I've been guilty of mopery a time or two.

[Scout 30]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Additionally, a good share of the decrease in the crime rate can be attributed to Roe versus Wade.

I had to shake my head & laugh at this but then I thought, hmmm.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Such hardened criminals much the homeless living in boxes and tents and the nearly homeless with an older retired anchorout, living the high life on $400/month. Best put them in prison where they can not been seen. Thing is being homeless should not be a crime. But it is quickly becoming one or so it seems. Such interesting times we live in.


BTW the BLM actually allows folks to park their trailers on public land for free. Mainly in the western USA. There is a time limit of 14 days, where the freedom loving RV'er moves to the next "Free" site.

Pretty much just like on the water. I do that very thing. and have for quite some time. Though I've been guilty of mopery a time or two.

Unfortunately, it would seem many of the indigent population are drug related.

I believe there should be a delineation between that and indigent by happenstance. Not speaking of the occasional joint.

[PhiSig1071]

Originally Posted by newhaul

What does that or any other crime statistic have to do with abandoned and or derelict vessels.
IMO the first thing they need to do is get rid of all the ambiguous anchoring laws concerning the afore mentioned vessels, and enact a concise easy to read and follow law at the state level. That defines and has a specific remedy for dealing with anchored vessels that meet the requirements of said laws.
I have posted it before there are laws such as this in other states that can be used as a model to draft one for Florida that would be viable.

Be very careful what you wish for. Most of the time more laws=less rights, laws are generally restrictive, rather than beneficial.

[Scout 30]

I've never stayed at Boot Key Harbor but I've been through Marathon on the way to the Bahamas & Key West several times & have always dreamed of wintering at BKH if I ever retire. However, this thread is making Marathon sound like a third world country. Between the drug dealers & addicts, vagrants, people that poop in the water &, worst of all, poor people I'm starting to think maybe I should just head for Cuba.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Such hardened criminals much the homeless living in boxes and tents and the nearly homeless with an older retired anchorout, living the high life on $400/month. Best put them in prison where they can not been seen. Thing is being homeless should not be a crime. But it is quickly becoming one or so it seems. Such interesting times we live in.


BTW the BLM actually allows folks to park their trailers on public land for free. Mainly in the western USA. There is a time limit of 14 days, where the freedom loving RV'er moves to the next "Free" site.

Pretty much just like on the water. I do that very thing. and have for quite some time. Though I've been guilty of mopery a time or two.

You can be homeless if it suits you, that's fine with me. That doesn't mean you can anchor your derelict boat on the public waterways or park your broken down trailer in the city park.

So the best you can come up with is the BLM letting people camp for free for fourteen days. That's fine with me, anchor your boat for 14 days and then move along. Problem solved and without taking anchoring rights away from cruisers.

[zboss]

Originally Posted by PhiSig1071

Be very careful what you wish for. Most of the time more laws=less rights, laws are generally restrictive, rather than beneficial.

If it were that easy... the state doesn't want anchoring AT ALL. So unless you are willing to pony up a couple grand a month in slip fees then I'd advise against this route. Better to let the state keep in-fighting and, in general, fight anchoring laws whenever they creep up.

[Scout 30]

Originally Posted by rwidman

You can be homeless if it suits you, that's fine with me. That doesn't mean you can anchor your derelict boat on the public waterways or park your broken down trailer in the city park.

So the best you can come up with is the BLM letting people camp for free for fourteen days. That's fine with me, anchor your boat for 14 days and then move along. Problem solved and without taking anchoring rights away from cruisers.

Living on a boat is not being homeless. The Federal Government recognizes boats with kitchens & heads as homes. If a boat is used daily & can move under it's own power it is not derelict. I've noticed that every time these anchoring threads crop up you are always on the side of limiting the right to anchor. Restricting anyone's right to anchor restricts everyone's right to anchor. If you're really a "cruiser" anchor restrictions are the last thing you should want to see.

[CareKnot]

Having operated a ministry supporting the homeless for the last dozen years or so, I can tell you with a great deal of certainty that you are mistaken. Yes, there are a large percentage that end up self medicating. But it is not the reason they are homeless. In my experience, the self medication starts with living in abject poverty, exposed to the elements, being shunned by society and having no avenue of escape.

You are correct that these poor people are lumped in with fugitive felons, petty criminals and the like. No surprise there. But I have a number of homeless friends that are ethical and moral people. There only crime is poverty. An no, the cure isn't always, "Get a job you reprobate!" (See how I substituted for the more common expletives?)

Most of the criminal behavior is petty theft because they still have needs and no way to fulfill them. The normal cycle is to get a minor ticket for panhandling or something similar. They have no money, no transportation, can't pay the fine or miss a court date. They then become 'fugitives'. Not that they are 'on the run'. They have no place to run. They just wait to get picked up in the 'sweeps' when the local politicians want to appear like they are doing something for the citizenry. They serve their time, suffer the abuse and are unceremoniously dumped back on the streets.

I know university graduates and former professionals that have lost everything, now have debilitating health conditions, have no family and end up living in a homeless camp. Trust me when I say they don't want to be homeless and they aren't the scourge of the earth as some people seem to think.

Originally Posted by Cadence

Unfortunately, it would seem many of the indigent population are drug related.

I believe there should be a delineation between that and indigent by happenstance. Not speaking of the occasional joint.

[CareKnot]

Just a minor correction. She isn't a part of the OP. She isn't homeless, her yacht isn't a derelict and she is not a criminal either. From what I read, she is a compassionate and caring human being. We could use a few million more like her.

There is no reason to make derogatory personal remarks about other members. However, if you wish to share your joy or indifference at another's difficult circumstance, that says more about you than anyone.

The argument is that if the homeless take up residence in an abandoned boat, then they are not the ones responsible for putting it there in the first place. Maybe this will appeal to you. The law requires the state be notified with a change in ownership. In my mind, that makes the last registered owner culpable. So why aren't they given the citations, fined and incarcerated?

That's the ticket. Let's make it a felony too! Three strikes and we can ruin their life and their families lives too! Woo hoo!

Originally Posted by rwidman

You can be homeless if it suits you, that's fine with me. That doesn't mean you can anchor your derelict boat on the public waterways or park your broken down trailer in the city park.

So the best you can come up with is the BLM letting people camp for free for fourteen days. That's fine with me, anchor your boat for 14 days and then move along. Problem solved and without taking anchoring rights away from cruisers.

[capngeo]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

I firmly believe that the costs of disposal of derelicts are grossly exaggerated. Precisely because since it usually involves the gov't it becomes the proverbial "$1,200 hammer or $6,000 toilet seat". I do not see the real at cost disposal of on the water or on the hard boat as being above $1,000 unless graft, greed, government or all three are involved. How much does it take to get 2 marina workers to raft up the derelict boat to a 20ft Boston Whaler and to bring her to docks or launch ramp - $100-150 max for an hour or two worth of work? Then a quick haul out, another $100-150 and a trip to the disposal site, another $150-200 depending on the distance, which usually take these boats for under $500, often $200-300. Add spill/workers comp insurance, etc and you have about $1,000 give or take per boat on average. Not the $10,000s we are being scared with.

PS When you will be challenging my estimates remember that you will be operating with the numbers given to you by the industry which include their obscene profits (such as "salvage" bill for a few mile tow in the thousands) and I am giving you the actual costs gleemed from working close with a local hauler and knowing his real costs not what he bills the customers, usually the insurance companies or the non salty boat owners.

I was in the business for a number of years. What you are not considering is that the equipment and crews need to be available 27/7/365. This in and of itself is hideously expensive. For fiscal survival, an operator must distribute these costs over the "average number" of calls per year, divided by "the average" number of hours per call. Salvage costs seem exorbitant to the layman, but I can assure you that the vast majority of the operators in the industry are NOT wealthy from these endeavors.

Secondly, disposal is not so easy either, as most landfills will not accept a vessel until it has been thoroughly cleaned of all Haz-Mat. Again this needs to be done by a Haz-Mat operator who similarly to the salvage company must amortize all expenses for 24/7/365 availability. The fuel, oil, etc is again hideously expensive to dispose of in a responsible manner.

Honestly, the rates charged are really a bargain IF you want them done in an environmentally responsible manner

[capngeo]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Such hardened criminals much the homeless living in boxes and tents and the nearly homeless with an older retired anchorout, living the high life on $400/month. Best put them in prison where they can not been seen. Thing is being homeless should not be a crime. But it is quickly becoming one or so it seems. Such interesting times we live in.


BTW the BLM actually allows folks to park their trailers on public land for free. Mainly in the western USA. There is a time limit of 14 days, where the freedom loving RV'er moves to the next "Free" site.

Pretty much just like on the water. I do that very thing. and have for quite some time. Though I've been guilty of mopery a time or two.

"MOPERY"??????

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by Scout 30

Living on a boat is not being homeless. The Federal Government recognizes boats with kitchens & heads as homes. If a boat is used daily & can move under it's own power it is not derelict. I've noticed that every time these anchoring threads crop up you are always on the side of limiting the right to anchor. Restricting anyone's right to anchor restricts everyone's right to anchor. If you're really a "cruiser" anchor restrictions are the last thing you should want to see.

You seem to have a hard time with reading comprehension.

So a boat is a home. Of course it can be a home just like a trailer can be a home. You still don't have a right to anchor or park it on public property for an unlimited time.

It's the people who anchor boats permanently and live on them that cause the problems for us cruisers (yes, I am a "cruiser). Cruisers anchor for a few days and move on.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by capngeo

I was in the business for a number of years. What you are not considering is that the equipment and crews need to be available 27/7/365. This in and of itself is hideously expensive. For fiscal survival, an operator must distribute these costs over the "average number" of calls per year, divided by "the average" number of hours per call. Salvage costs seem exorbitant to the layman, but I can assure you that the vast majority of the operators in the industry are NOT wealthy from these endeavors.

Secondly, disposal is not so easy either, as most landfills will not accept a vessel until it has been thoroughly cleaned of all Haz-Mat. Again this needs to be done by a Haz-Mat operator who similarly to the salvage company must amortize all expenses for 24/7/365 availability. The fuel, oil, etc is again hideously expensive to dispose of in a responsible manner.

Honestly, the rates charged are really a bargain IF you want them done in an environmentally responsible manner

I would be agreeing with you if I did not know any better. First of all why the need for 24/7/365 availability when we're not talking about any vessels in immediate need of salvage but rather about vessels which already are out there supposedly "derelict" for months or years. Plus if the number of such vessels is as high as their critics claim why not figure out a volume/exclusivity discount with the salvagers? I'm sure they'll be happy to supplement their lean days with these contracts.

Second, the guy I was talking about simply runs any oil/diesel/gas through cleaner/filtering system and either uses it himself on his trucks or sells/gives it away. He's always happy to find 20-50-100gals of old diesel in a junked boat which he brings back to life by filtering it several times.

This idea that everything must be 100% perfect or otherwise should not be done is what creating the problem in the first place. No one is talking about purposefully polluting the environment by not dealing with these issues. But to claim that the costs are so astronomically high that the problem must simply be left as is or have exorbitant costs associated with it is just not true.

PS In my book if one can be making money on some procedure but someone else ends up crying that such procedure is "too expensive to implement" it is either incompetence or greed/corruption. Take your pick.