FWC Derelict Enforcement Marathon

[brownoarsman]

Originally Posted by Byrdman

.
IMO, what will probably eventually happen to pay for this is that a state fee at the boat's purchases, like tire, oil, etc. disposal fees, and additional annual registration fees could create a fund to deal with the problem. Although I may not like it, it would seem the most fair to spread out on everyone that makes up the boating community.

I would rather see a significant bond be paid every time a boat changes hands. Get the bond back when you document that you sold the boat and the buyer has registered it (and now has paid his bond). Or have the new buyer pay you the bond equivalent and you transfer the bond to his name, which would probably be easier. Your boat sinks and you don't deal with it and the state steps in to clean up the mess? The last registered owner forfeits his bond.

You've got a boat you can't give away for free? Call the salvage guy who harvests boats for lead, and at least get your bond back before your boat becomes a problem for everyone else.


Sent from my Nexus 5X using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by rwidman

Because if he doesn't, he is not a cruiser, he is a squatter.

The reason you can't understand my point is, you are reading my post, not with the intention of trying to understand, but with the intention of arguing.

Ron, I grew up with a boat on the hook probably 8 month a year , not live aboard. An anchorage and a large 400# mushroom anchor down with pendent buoy. I don't recall derelicts. There may have been some but I can't see painting everyone with a boat on the hook with a broad brush as indigent.

I wish I would see more designated anchorages. People taking their tender in or hitting the horn for a taxi.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by rwidman

Because if he doesn't, he is not a cruiser, he is a squatter.

The reason you can't understand my point is, you are reading my post, not with the intention of trying to understand, but with the intention of arguing.

With due respect, this is nonsense. As a cruiser, I have spent more than a few days... or a few weeks... in the same anchorage more than once. I am not indigent, my boat is well maintained, I follow local rules and practices, and no one has ever complained about our presence.

I was not then, nor am I now a "squatter".

Jim

[rwidman]

If long term anchoring and derelict boats were not a problem, we wouldn't be seeing laws being passed to regulate them.


If we want to minimize the effect of these laws on cruisers, we will support efforts to remove derelict boats and "squatters".

[a64pilot]

No JIm your not, but in truth the problem boats are not navigable, they don't move, can't move. They or their inhabitants are not cruisers.
They are run down and destined to be run down more until they sink, and part of the problem is all boats and boat owners are grouped as one.
Just as a for instance, my insurance guy has told me that We won't be live aboard's, we will go on an extended cruise of unknown duration, cause if I declare myself a live aboard, he can no longer cover me.
Unfortunately the insurance companies I guess have labeled someone who lives aboard as undesirable.
It would appear that unless something changes soon, that cruisers will no longer be welcome in South Fl, and that area may spread.

[Scout 30]

Originally Posted by rwidman

Because if he doesn't, he is not a cruiser, he is a squatter.

The reason you can't understand my point is, you are reading my post, not with the intention of trying to understand, but with the intention of arguing.

Another personal attack. I understand your point. I just don't agree with it.

[Hudson Force]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

With due respect, this is nonsense. As a cruiser, I have spent more than a few days... or a few weeks... in the same anchorage more than once. I am not indigent, my boat is well maintained, I follow local rules and practices, and no one has ever complained about our presence.

I was not then, nor am I now a "squatter".

Jim

I must stand with Jim with this concern. There are numerous ports where we have remained at anchor for several weeks at a time and return every year or two. We feel a sense of community in numerous places. We have attended community events and even hold library cards in several different counties where we anchor.

We attempt to be honorable citizens and have even attended local city council meetings to identify our responsible role when there have been local issues related to anchoring.

Sure, there are "squatters", but that's a result of their behavior, not simply because they stay for a few weeks.

[Jim Cate]

No JIm your not, but in truth the problem boats are not navigable, they don't move, can't move.

A64, I fully understand this. My post was a rebuttal to RWid's claim that anyone who remained in an anchorage more than a few days was a squatter, and should be removed.

I strongly disagree with this statement.

This does not mean that I condone derelict vessels or anti-social and irresponsible behavior by folks at anchor.

Jim

[Scout 30]

Originally Posted by rwidman

If long term anchoring and derelict boats were not a problem, we wouldn't be seeing laws being passed to regulate them.


If we want to minimize the effect of these laws on cruisers, we will support efforts to remove derelict boats and "squatters".

What a load of crap. You are lumping in every cruiser who spends more than a few days anchored in one place with derelict boats. Spoken like a rich waterfront land owner who thinks he owns as far as the eye can see. Of course they're not the same at all but don't let the facts get in your way.

[Byrdman]

Originally Posted by rwidman

If long term anchoring and derelict boats were not a problem, we wouldn't be seeing laws being passed to regulate them.


If we want to minimize the effect of these laws on cruisers, we will support efforts to remove derelict boats and "squatters".

I agree but with a little discretion. Categories 1 & 2 from the post a few pages back.

Originally Posted by a64pilot

No JIm your not, but in truth the problem boats are not navigable, they don't move, can't move. They or their inhabitants are not cruisers.
They are run down and destined to be run down more until they sink, and part of the problem is all boats and boat owners are grouped as one.
Just as a for instance, my insurance guy has told me that We won't be live aboard's, we will go on an extended cruise of unknown duration, cause if I declare myself a live aboard, he can no longer cover me.
Unfortunately the insurance companies I guess have labeled someone who lives aboard as undesirable.
It would appear that unless something changes soon, that cruisers will no longer be welcome in South Fl, and that area may spread.

I seriously doubt cruisers will not be welcome in south FL. Maybe a few spots, but our economy relies on visitors. Anything that jeopardizes the almighty tourism tourism dollar will be delt with swiftly.

[capt-couillon]

Once again... Interesting

As a full time "cruiser" I spend probably 10% of my time making passage and 90% enjoying where I am at... Sometimes for several days, sometimes for years. When I get bored, or feel unwelcome, or for whatever other reason I decide, I pull the hook or drop the mooring and move along. Been here in Boot Key Harbor for just a year now (whoo-hoo, now I get the long term discount on my mooring next summer). Will probably be here for another year before running back to central america. Squatter? I think not. Take the boat out for the occasional "Sail away Sunday" or spend a week or so in the back country just to blow out the cobwebs, but after three or four decades, the romance of making passage wears off.

These arrests you are all so concerned about are long term, known offenders who, as I have previously stated, will not be missed by the local community. Long term and "snow bird" alike" As an example, here is a quote from the FWC report on one of the offenders

This suspect had been the focus of a long
term, 3 month investigationof his multiple derelict vessels
byInvestigator Cox. After the morethan 15 previous citations and more than 5 law enforcement encounters withOfficer Plussa, Investigator Cox, and other FWC and Sheriff’s officials, the suspect deliberately continued to remain in violation
and out of compliance,evading officers. During a Post Miranda interview with Officer Plussa, the suspect admitted to trying to remove the notice.

Apples and oranges guys

[brownoarsman]

An interesting occurrence over the weekend that bears relevance to this thread.

Maryland has some pretty cool, universal water access rights. Every resident is allowed to sink one mooring. The trouble is, you have to be able to access said mooring. In my neck of the river, that means being part of a water privileged community, or dinghying 3 miles from the public access ramp.

A few days ago, some idiot, not part of the community, brought in a mildewed old sailboat and dropped it, on a little anchor, in the middle of the clearly marked mooring field where its swing will interfere with pre-established moorings. Pretty sure the boats closest to it will be calling the state regulators soon. Sometimes people do it to themselves and I wonder how long universal access here will last when people can't be trusted to use common sense.

Derelicts have also started to become an issue around Annapolis, taking up residence in some of the river basins, with one owner drowning earlier this year if I recall the news right. If monohull prices keep falling, I'm sure the problem will only get worse: more boats, same space, more problems and more calls for regulation.

So, these issues are not just in Florida, and I think cruisers are right to be worried that Florida will serve as a blueprint for water towns all over the US who will be facing similar situations in the coming years.

[Scout 30]

A lot of the anchoring problems in Florida & elsewhere can be dealt with using laws already on the books. Normally it's illegal to anchor in the middle of a mooring field or a channel. If someone does it they should be forced to move immediately & if they refuse they should be arrested. That's a far cry from criminalizing anchoring off the beaten path for a month or two in a fully found boat. I think the dream of a lot of sailors, myself included, is finding that tropical island or idyllic secluded cove to anchor in & just live. Paradise for some. For others you're just a "squatter".

[CareKnot]

So let me see if I understand the issues that have cropped up from the OP. If I am hearing everyone's concerns and perceptions correctly, they would loosely fall under the following headings:

1. Well Situated vs Limited Means
   Poverty is not a condition that is easily understood. It must be experienced. It is the ultimate catch 22, where even the most mundane daily challenges of survival and subsistence become herculean tasks. To those that have experienced poverty, there is nothing I could add.
   
   To those that have never done without, there is little chance I could educating them. Enough to say that the haves will never understand the plight of the have-nots or have any compassion for them, until they too are reduced by tragic happenstance to a more humble state.
2. Responsible Behavior vs Illegal and Irresponsible activities
   Unlike poverty, ethical an legal behavior is a choice usually associated with the character of an individual. This is not to say that extreme circumstances will not drive a good person to make some hard choices.
   
   Personally, I think survival should be a legal defense in all cases of sustenance and shelter. Transgression of the law in a civilized society is usually the product of knowledgeable intent, ignorance or desperation. These factors should be taken into account when adjudicating the letter and spirit of the law.
   
   Not all laws are fair, nor are all laws fairly applied. It should be noted, those that enforce the law and those that adjudicate the same, usually have no frame of reference when it comes to living under desperate circumstances. They see it. But they do not understand it. That is why the poor remain among the majority of the US prisoner population. Drugs and alcohol are more often a symptom of a underlying condition; one most people are happy to ignore.
   
   Note: I am in no way a 'socialist' as I consider the philosophy nothing more than idealistic fantasy; unrealistic to an extreme. But to say that we have no social or material responsibility to the less fortunate among us; the indigent, the unbalanced, the diseased or disabled, demonstrates an unforgivable willful ignorance of the most basic norms of a civilized society. Put another way, the 'sweep it under the rug' mentality is savage barbarity disguised as 'polite society'. Historical examples abound.
   
   Opinion: Our society has changed and not for the better. Personally, I see this as the driving force behind the growth of the cruising phenomena; to escape from the stress and inequity of a modern technological and industrial society. Unfortunately, it seems the whole world has gone crazy. I would suggest you see it while you still can.
3. Jurisdiction of the State vs Freedom of Navigation Operations
   Some have claimed that anchoring is a right under maritime law and international treaties. They are correct, but with a major caveat.
   
   The salient points as I understand the matter can be found in the legal concept of Innocent passage (...codified as article 87(1)a of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.). "...[It] concedes the coastal country's territorial sea claim, unlike freedom of navigation, which directly contests it." and are best summarized in this excerpt: "Passage shall be continuous and expeditious. However, passage includes stopping and anchoring, but only as incidental to ordinary navigation, or rendered necessary by force majeure or distress, or for the purpose of rendering assistance to persons, ships, or aircraft in danger or distress. [LOSC 18]"
   
   Wikipedia:

   "Innocent passage is a concept in the law of the sea that allows for a vessel to pass through the territorial waters of another state, subject to certain restrictions. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea defines innocent passage as this: (See:UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA)
   Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law.
   
   Innocent passage concedes the coastal country's territorial sea claim, unlike freedom of navigation, which directly contests it. (See: Bosco, Joseph A. "Are Freedom of Navigation Operations and Innocent Passage Really the Same?". The Diplomat. Retrieved 2016-03-13.)
   The law was codified in 1958 and affirmed in 1982 (See:Rothwell, Donald R.; Bateman, W. S. Walter Samuel Grono (2000-11-14). Navigational Rights and Freedoms, and the New Law of the Sea. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 9041114998.)"

   In summary, even under maritime law, there are rights reserved by the state within their territorial waters concerning every topic from anchoring areas to sanitary and safety regulations to customs enforcement to espionage. The maritime definition of 'anchoring' under the heading of 'innocent passage' as a right guaranteed under international treaty, are very narrowly defined and has been even more narrowly interpreted by The British High Court of Admiralty and the United States Supreme Court. More often than not, the state can and does exert considerable jurisdiction.
   
   Disclaimer: I am not an expert on these matters, but I can read. Should anyone have a more precise understanding, please share your knowledge in this matter along with relevant citations and bone fides. I stand ready to receive your correction.
4. Navigable Vessel vs Derelict
   Self explanatory. For better or for worse, if your vessel cannot navigate on its own, you have very limited rights. In actual practice in the US, grace is usually extended to those showing a good faith effort to make repairs and conduct themselves according to the laws and customs of the land. But as a matter of fact, it seems the cruising sailor and the live-aboard resident has limited recourse under the law beyond that normally extended to the citizen or visiting visa holder.
5. Cruising Sailor vs Resident Live-aboard
   See the comedy routine, "If you _________, you might be a ________." It is in practice often a difference without a distinction.

I am probably not in the majority opinion on these issues. But I don't subscribe to the theory that the majority opinion defines truth. So anyway, how am I doing so far? Let the 'slings and arrows' [unintelligible]...

[a64pilot]

The boats I'm talking about, have no sails, often one of the stays is broken, there may or may not even be a boom or mast, the boat is covered in bird droppings, may or may not have the remains of a blue tarp trying to cover the cockpit and is anchored by a 1/2 nylon line with maybe a Danforth undersized anchor.
If there are any lights on it at all at night it will be a garden Solar light, but likely unlit.

It is the marine equivalent of a cardboard box.

If someone is living in it, they shouldn't have to. But often I believe they do so by choice. In my life I have met quite a few "homeless" people, and it seems at least sometime, they live that way, because they want to. Many have the skills to do "better", but chose not to.


Then on a completely different note, most of the derelict boats where I live are seemingly abandoned, nobody is ever there, yet they take up space, look terrible, become a hazard in any storm, and usually sink, often of course you see just the mast sticking out of the water