anchor-outs have significantly harmed the ecosystem

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Beau.Vrolyk

... First, let's eliminate all the arguments that are basically: "What anchor-outs are doing is not as bad as _____." Where one fills in whatever terrible thing they can think of. That's just lame, folks. Of course, there are worse things. It is painfully obvious that this sort of fractured logic is just wrong. It's the "We suck less than those other guys." argument and it won't work on any clear-thinking person ...

The "not as bad as" fallacy, also known as the “fallacy of relative privation”,[moral equivalence] asserts that:
- If something is worse than the problem currently being discussed,
then
- The problem currently being discussed isn't that important at all.
- In order for the statement "A is not as bad as B," to suggest a fallacy, there must be a fallacious conclusion such as: ignore A.
In other words: nothing matters if it's not literally the worst thing happening.
Sure, many developed countries may still have homelessness, but at least here they have bridges to sleep under, and garbage cans to eat out of!
Clearly in a (rare) binary choice, the lesser evil should win.


He says, whilst gazing into his useless navel.

[Norman_E]

In the UK there is Lulworth cove where so called environmentalists are trying to get anchoring banned, by alleging that anchoring is damaging the eelgrass and the local population of seahorses. What the environmental pressure group ignore is that despite years of anchoring in the cove the eelgrass now covers a larger area than it did years ago. Has anyone even asked whether the area of grass in the bay the Audubon Society are "studying" has actually decreased in recent years? Anchoring may actually be spreading the grass and the ploughing effect may even encourage new growth. Boaters need to fight back against often biased environmentalists who will ignore any evidence that does not fit their agendas.

[Exile]

[QUOTE=Montanan;2896859]

Originally Posted by Exile

As to avoiding unnecessary harm to the ecosystem in the especially heavily used region of the bay, I have suggested / recommended that environmentally friendly moorings be installed so as to preclude the use of vessel dropped anchor mooring and the use of ground tackle that comes into contact with the seabottom and which rode damages the seameadow. A bit of adept utilization of technology can go a long way to mitigating impacts.

So if by the term anchorage you mean the deployment of a temporary anchor to moor to the ground instead of a permanent moor then yes I would go so far as to eliminate such anchoring and provide a better alternative.

The societal issues [as to affordable housing alternatives] and pollution issues are distinct matters.

OK, got it thanks. I often think of "anchorages" as those which also contain moorings but that's not really correct (just what I'm used to seeing in my locale).

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Now that there are many yachties utilizing aerial drone vidography, it is much more common to see the striking damage of a boat that uses chains for mooring / anchoring. Note: Rope rode is less damaging but still adverse.

It is rather the equivalent of clear cutting a forest.

Reference an inland lake in Australia titled:
"Chain moorings creating holes in the seagrass, Lake Macquarie, NSW, Australia" https://blog.arribasail.com/2014/11/...ease-dont.html

There is no arguing that the damage occurs and that it is significant.

Human activity and presence damages the natural surroundings. Anchoring in eel grass "mows" the eel grass. Housing developments in prairie areas damage the prairie. Clearing the woodland to make building lots... etc etc.

It seems like restricting one form of damage while ignoring many others is unfair, (think marine discharge vs storm sewers) however anchor-outs and liveaboards are really undesirable people anyhow, with a rather small voting constituency, and best to get rid of them and allow the shoreline landowners a nicer view.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The "not as bad as" fallacy, also known as the “fallacy of relative privation”,[moral equivalence] asserts that:
- If something is worse than the problem currently being discussed,
then
- The problem currently being discussed isn't that important at all.
- In order for the statement "A is not as bad as B," to suggest a fallacy, there must be a fallacious conclusion such as: ignore A.
In other words: nothing matters if it's not literally the worst thing happening.
Sure, many developed countries may still have homelessness, but at least here they have bridges to sleep under, and garbage cans to eat out of!
Clearly in a (rare) binary choice, the lesser evil should win.


He says, whilst gazing into his useless navel.

Seems like one of those fallacies to watch out for, but fortunately nobody seems to be making such false analogies in this thread. Except for the false and misleading attempt to compare what's happening in Richardson Bay to the outbreaks of highly contagious diseases not seen since the Middle Ages on the streets of San Fran and other major cities. Since we seemed to have moved away from the eelgrass issue, do you have another study which compares the actual impact from sewage in tidal saltwater areas (with fast-moving currents) to sewage on sidewalks? Seems to me that would be more relevant than abstract notions with catchy names.

[suncat]

First I do not live there or boat there but....there is always a but

It is always best to look at the history before

http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/planning/repo...y_Sept1983.pdf

I turned up this report. It seems Bay was doomed from the mid 1800's with deforestation of the area and then subsequent dredging and filling that followed! And I did not even check your sewer plant discharges and storm water runoff....

Just saying check the history.....

Enjoy the read

Randy

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

Seems like one of those fallacies to watch out for, but fortunately nobody seems to be making such false analogies in this thread ...

Originally Posted by Exile

... do you have another study which compares the actual impact from sewage in tidal saltwater areas (with fast-moving currents) to sewage on sidewalks? Seems to me that would be more relevant...

Originally Posted by wingssail

... It seems like restricting one form of damage while ignoring many others is unfair, (think marine discharge vs storm sewers) ...

You think not?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

You think not?

In the realm of public policy, failing to prioritize the relative impacts on the public at large is not only unfair but a breach of the public trust. Do you think not??

[armstrong]

Please note the large marina in the foreground of the image in the sfgate article. The audubon study omits mention of the marina and its effects on eelgrass and water quality. Why so selective?

[Montanan]

[QUOTE=Exile;2896890]

Originally Posted by Montanan

OK, got it thanks. I often think of "anchorages" as those which also contain moorings but that's not really correct (just what I'm used to seeing in my locale).

Definition of mooring
1 : an act of making fast a boat or aircraft with lines or anchors

2a : a place where or an object to which something (such as a craft) can be moored [made fast / secured in place].
b : a device (such as a line or chain) by which an object is secured in place

3. The ropes, chains, or anchors by or to which a boat, ship, or buoy is moored.

When one moors it could be by fastening to the sea bottom, a dock,or quay or to a connection on land; it can be accomplished by use of temporary anchors [e.g., dropped anchor] or by permanent anchors.

The "environmentally friendly" mooring systems all have rode that is made to be buoyant so as to not come into contact with the ground and also has "anchors" that do not shift on and or disturb the bottom, e.g, helical rods screwed into the substrate have tremendous load holding capacity and can utilize very short scopes of rode.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by wingssail

however anchor-outs and liveaboards are really undesirable people anyhow, with a rather small voting constituency, and best to get rid of them and allow the shoreline landowners a nicer view.

That is what it really is about.
Forget California for awhile so it doesn’t seem as if I’m picking on them, but for a long time I believe it was illegal to live aboard a boat in the State of Georgia, the reason was to get rid of those nasty people doing nasty things in view of my vacation home.

https://criminaldefensetucson.com/sp...orgia-illegal/

Currently you can only live on your boat in Georgia in only a very few Marina’s and only after filling out paperwork and requesting to do so.

I believe it’s up to five Marina’s now, all on the coast, and you cannot anchor out or even stay in a mooring field in Georgia for more than 30 days in one year.

[Akafred]

This is absolute crap! I’ve lived in Sausalito for the past 5 yrs and I’ve witnessed a concerted effort from the city to find a way to get rid of the so called “anchor out’s”. A few years ago I recall the concern was alleged crime increase and at the time they also brought up the so called damage to the eel grass which was shown to be a false representation of facts as there was aerial photographic proof showing an increase in eel grass coverage in Richardson bay.. at the time they were also claiming the the anchor out’s were polluting the bay. Again this was proven incorrect based on multiple water studies..

This is just a shameless power grab by the local communities trying to find a way to increase revenues by taxing people for living free on boats in front of their town with a better view. They want everyone on a mooring so they can charge for the privilege. If these communities were truly concerned with eel grass they could easily create free mooring fields to alleviate this so called issue. But this won’t happen because it’s not an environmental issue it’s all about $$$.

[Exile]

[QUOTE=Montanan;2896981]

Originally Posted by Exile

Definition of mooring
1 : an act of making fast a boat or aircraft with lines or anchors

2a : a place where or an object to which something (such as a craft) can be moored [made fast / secured in place].
b : a device (such as a line or chain) by which an object is secured in place

3. The ropes, chains, or anchors by or to which a boat, ship, or buoy is moored.

When one moors it could be by fastening to the sea bottom, a dock,or quay or to a connection on land; it can be accomplished by use of temporary anchors [e.g., dropped anchor] or by permanent anchors.

The "environmentally friendly" mooring systems all have rode that is made to be buoyant so as to not come into contact with the ground and also has "anchors" that do not shift on and or disturb the bottom, e.g, helical rods screwed into the substrate have tremendous load holding capacity and can utilize very short scopes of rode.

As stated, I got it. Along with the pros & cons of moorings vs. anchorages as also already discussed and as most cruisers have personally experienced. If you can only see upsides to moorings than you're ignoring the downsides of saving some eelgrass.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

In the realm of public policy, failing to prioritize the relative impacts on the public at large is not only unfair but a breach of the public trust...

I would, generally, agree with that statement.
“You can always tell when a man's well informed. His views are pretty much like your own.” ~ H. Jackson Brown, Jr.

[Nicholson58]

Originally Posted by admiralslater

We have spent a lot of time in the Grenadines since 1994 . During this time I have been to observe what happens when moorings become the norm .
In the Tobago Cays ,which sees hundreds of boats a week, they allow anchoring or you can take a ball . Most charter boats take a ball . They also have cordoned off an area from all boat traffic except dingys . The result is a return of sea grass and of turtles,rays etc.
In Bequia where the unregulated placement of moorings is rampant the bay has much more sealife and cleaner water than you might expect for such a busy anchourage .
My libertarian friend who is a captain in Bequia ,was originally against the moorings and the boat free area in the keys but now is in favour of them and told me that the water in Bequia is clearer now than 15 years ago .
In Dominica they use Dyneema instead of chain to further reduce damage to the sea bottom.
I like to anchour as much as the next guy ,but you cant really argue about the damage . Also saying “what about this or what about that “ does not change the facts .
Perhaps rich land owners will use this as an argument but just because a rich guy may have an agenda does not mean it is not true

There is no question that moorings are better for the environment.

We just spent 8 weeks in Bonaire. Moorings are mandatory, no anchoring anywhere including dinghy. They have about forty moorings at ten $ US per day. Moorings are large concrete blocks or screw anchors. The bottom life is sand and coral, no grasses. Mooring lines are floaters with two pennants, port and starboard. The sea life is legendary.

When we anchor, we attempt to drop on previously disturbed sea bed if the water is clear enough to see.

If they are serious about changing Richardson Bay and not just eviction and urban renewal the use of well maintained moorings is an option. On the other hand, the total area occupied by anchored boats compared to the total area of sea grass is probably very small. The ratio of scoured area is only large in the immediate area of the anchorage. That’s like defining the grass damage at the playground by only looking under the swings. Therefore, ban the children.