What more can you do to preserve anchoring in FL? UPDATE
Date Posted: April 10, 2015
Source: WG Staff

CRFund.jpg

UPDATE: In addition to the list below, you can help greatly by attending Senate and House hearings this Tuesday, Apr. 14, 2015, in Tallahassee – 9 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. A Senate committee hearing for SB-1548, which includes the anchoring restriction within 200' of waterfront residences, is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. We were hopeful that an amendment would be introduced to change the setback provision, but none has been put forward thus far.

The House bill on at-risk vessels (House Bill 7123 ) will be read in committee at 9 a.m. Although this bill does not include anchoring restrictions for vessels that are neither considered "derelict" nor at risk of becoming derelict, amendments may be introduced to more closely match the Senate bill.

If you can join SSCA, AGLCA and BoatUS Tuesday in Tallahassee, please do. If you plan to go, or if you need or could help set up transportation or a carpool, let me know and I'll connect you with others who will be there – a large showing by cruisers will make a difference!

Whether you can go or not, it's time to email a short note to the Senate committee members stating that you disapprove of the residential setbacks, and why. See bottom of this article for some notes from SSCA and AGLCA.

(EDITORIAL) As a restrictive anchoring bill pushes its way through the Florida legislature, cruisers have voiced their disapproval by writing State Senate and House members, and spreading the word to other boaters. The Seven Seas Cruising Association (SSCA) has led the effort in Tallahassee, with support from BoatUS, America's Great Loop Cruisers' Association (AGLCA), and other concerned cruisers.

Although most of these folks are volunteering their time and effort, the costs of research, travel, and other expenses have been mounting. Meanwhile, many Florida towns and businesses which welcome and rely on the influx of cruising tourists have not yet recognized the likely negative consequences stemming from the proposed 200-foot residential setback rule.

Here's a couple ways we can help:

SSCA has set up the "2015 Cruisers' Rights Fund" to help defray the costs and increase the effectiveness of our efforts. From the donation page:

"The Concerned Cruisers' Committee (CCC) of Seven Seas Cruising Association (SSCA) has, for many years, supported the rights of cruisers to navigate, anchor and enjoy the “Seven Seas” both in the U.S. and abroad. We have had recent success in Annapolis and in Georgia, and we are engaged in South Carolina, Washington and California. 

"Last year we helped to defeat a hostile amendment to the FWC Budget that would have limited anchoring in most of Broward and Miami/Dade. Anchoring opponents have introduced a new bill that is even more onerous and would dramatically limit anchoring in Florida. SB1548 is being heard by committees as your read this, and SSCA is there, on the ground, fighting for your right to anchor."

Any little bit you can donate will help – visit the 2015 Cruisers' Rights Fund page to help.

Another way you can help is by informing the marine stores, marinas, gear manufactures, town tourism councils, etc... that this legislation would set an onerous precedent and could negatively affect boating in Florida – and every other state where there is navigable public waters.

Some might still be thinking that a 200-foot residential buffer wouldn't affect cruisers much. But the fact is that, especially when a vessel's swinging circle is added to the buffer, many anchorages relied on by cruisers would become effectively off-limits, affecting not only the freedom, but the safety of cruising boaters. More importantly, the 200 feet could later grow to 300 feet (that's the length of a football field, by the way) or more, and the Florida precedent might pave the way for legislation in Georgia, or Maryland, or Michigan, etc....

This one is truly worth the fight.

Other WaterwayGuide.com articles/editorials:

...and a new Letter to the Editor at KeysNet.com: City must reject proposed anchoring law.

Notes on sending information to members of the Senate committee, from SSCA and AGLCA:

It's time to contact some of the Florida legislators to make your opinion on anchoring restrictions known. Here are some pointers and information on writing a letter:

The Senate Committee on General Government Operations will hear SB 1548 this Tuesday (April 14) at 1:30 p.m. It is important to voice opposition to a provision in this bill that bans anchoring within a specified distance of the shoreline of any upland property that has a “dwelling unit”. It is equally important that this input be conveyed in a way that is helpful to the cause and not hurtful. Here are some pointers:

1. The comments must be concise. Given the volume of mail received and the shortened time frame, Senators and staff will only have time to read a few paragraphs prior to the hearing. The main value is that so many of you took the time to lodge the input. 

2. The content must be respectful. I cannot emphasize this enough. Civility is paramount. Personal attacks, insults, ad hominem, and hyberbole not only cause the message to be ineffective, it becomes material that your opponents will use to ensure a backfire effect. Rude or disrespectful content will promote the passage of this anchoring ban provision. One outrageous statement can be used to characterize (and dismiss) our entire perspective.

3. Early in the letter, briefly explain your background (Boater, Florida property owner, Consumer who spends money while boating in Florida, etc.)

4. Choose 2-3 points (your own points … or points selected from the attached). Make the points briefly. Try not to ramble.

5. Begin and end the letter with a clear request such as “Please vote against the dwelling-unit anchoring setback provision in SB 1548”

6. It is helpful if the comments (and the subject line) be varied or personalized by senders to show that the sender was thoughtful and independent. If possible, vary the content so that not every email looks like a form letter that was produced and distributed en masse. Make it your own. Make it from you, not from a group or an association to which you belong. (Do not make reference to lobbyists, consultants or others.)

7. Direct the letters only to the members of the Committee that is hearing the bill at this time, as follows:

Chairman Alan Hays: [email protected]

Vice Chairman Oscar Braynon: [email protected]

Senator Thad Altman: [email protected]

Senator Charlie Dean: [email protected]

Senator Tom Lee: [email protected]

Senator Gwen Margolis: [email protected]

Senator Wilton Simpson: [email protected]

As mentioned above, it is helpful to frame your input in your own words. As an aid, however, below is a sample that demonstrates the above tips as-applied to this topic. (Note: The below sample is longer than necessary because it includes multiple points from which to select).

Re: I OPPOSE the dwelling unit set-back anchoring ban provision in Florida Senate Bill 1548

Dear [Chairman, Vice Chairman, or Senator]: 

I am a [state connection to Florida boating if any, occupation/business is helpful, property owner in Florida is helpful, boating experience related to Florida, and your version of something like: "Also, I contribute to the Florida economy in many ways, including significant expenses in the last 5 years at Florida marinas and boatyards, plus purchasing food and drink, mooring field fees, fuel, and other Florida marine expenses, all while paying Florida sales taxes, all related to my use of my boat."] 

As a responsible boater, I support the safety-related portions of SB 1548. I support measures that ensure boaters and waterfront property owners respect each other and do not engage in harassment. But the dwelling unit anchoring set-back ban provision in SB 1548 would eliminate public access to anchorages that have always been available to the public on this public land and water. This dwelling unit set-back provision is not safety-related. Rather, it would establish a preference for the convenience and view of waterfront landowners to control portions of the public natural resources. I strongly oppose this provision. 

Again, I DO support the SAFETY-RELATED provisions of SB 1548 that directly relate to the stated purpose and title of the bill which is “An Act Related to Vessel Safety” such as: the provisions limiting anchoring within a safe distance from boat ramps. Similarly, public safety justifies the provisions restricting derelict boats. I support all of these provisions.

But I oppose provisions that would arbitrarily create areas of public waterways near waterfront residences within which occupants of boats may not anchor. Such provisions are not related to safety and would result in laws that pick between classes and groups of people based upon the nature of the structure they choose to occupy.

Waterfront property owners must be respectfully reminded that the marine coastal resources of this State are not private. They are public. Disputes, if any, between boaters and landowners about anchoring and the conduct of individuals should be handled on a case-by-case basis through enforcement of nuisance and harassment laws. But the submerged lands that would be roped off by the blanket set-back in SB 1548 would encompass land that is owned by the State and, accordingly, by ALL Floridians … including many of the boaters and cruisers who also own land in Florida and pay taxes in Florida to help support the State's ownership and management of this submerged land and waters.  

The consequences of the dwelling unit anchoring set-back provision, if adopted, are unknown but would likely be massive and broad-reaching. To date, there has been no analysis showing how many of the areas that have historically been available for anchoring to the public, would be automatically eliminated. There has been not analysis showing the financial harm to the thousands of Florida’s small businesses that rely on the economic activity from hundreds of thousands of boating customers using these anchorages. There has been no analysis showing the resulting loss of jobs, local and state economic activity, and lost tax revenue. Local businesses and Chambers of Commerce have not been included in this discussion. Without this geographic and economic analysis and full involvement from the small business community, this provision is not ripe for consideration. 

Access to Florida's coastal waterways is a key component of this State's rich maritime history. To me and many others, Florida MEANS coastal waterways and the boating life, which includes anchoring on public waters. This sharing of public resources should continue to be preserved, protected, and jealously guarded. 

Please remove the dwelling unit anchoring ban provision contained in SB 1548.

Respectfully,

[Name].

Comment Submitted by John Kettlewell - April 12, 2015
Cruising boaters spend their money in different ways. For myself, I generally anchor out and vastly prefer it not for the cost savings, but because it is enjoyable. It is one reason I go cruising--to enjoy being at anchor. The money I save allows me to eat out ashore, purchase marine supplies, etc. I am not wealthy, but I have spent many thousands of dollars in Florida on these things. If I can't anchor I won't be going there, because one of the reasons I go cruising is to anchor out!
Comment Submitted by mike Ahart, Waterway Guide News Editor - April 11, 2015
If it were not for the sheer joy of anchoring at night, my wife and I would have never bothered to become cruisers. There is a profound peace at anchor – and we crave it. It's there whether we're anchored alone in a wild marsh, or in tight quarters at the foot of a city skyline. We need marinas. We need to: Rinse the boat off, do laundry, get pumped out, fill our water tanks, fill our fuel tanks, buy groceries and other provisions, get on our bikes to explore and get exercise, get prescriptions filled, take an extra long hot shower, eat at a nice restaurant, and experience the feel and history of a destination. Occasionally we also: Meet with family and friends in the area or who have flown or driven to visit, rent a car for major provisioning or local travel, or leave the boat to fly/drive home or away for weddings/funerals/graduations/etc... Also, we all-too-often need to: Buy stuff we need for the boat (parts, supplies, accessories, tools, etc...), get repairs done, get hauled out for bottom inspection/maintenance/paint, get refits/upgrades, take a cat to the vet, or visit the doctor or dentist. We also like to tie up snug in a slip when the weather report predicts strong storms and winds – we do not experience "profound peace" watching boats drag toward us through sheets of rain. We can do most of the above items either during quick marina stops or dinghying from an anchorage, but, for us, a marina stay is well worth the expense. We truly like staying at marinas, and we almost always make it a 2- or 3-night stop so we can leisurely get all the chores done and explore the town. And, by then, we're craving our anchoring fix (and so are the cats after being cooped up in the cabin for days). It's hard to explain this feeling to non-cruisers – or to cruisers who feel they must "plug in" every night. My wife and I aren't the only ones who cruise like this – most the cruisers we've met follow the same MO. We must anchor as often as possible, and we must stay at a marina once a week or so. (And, whether we want to or not, we spend money everywhere we go.)
Comment Submitted by Brian Frey - April 10, 2015
Sad that Mr. McCormick feels that more fees will increase revenue... All that will do is keep the cruisers away and you'll lose any revenue all together. Another reason cruisers use particular anchorages is for safe harbor from bad weather. If you wanted to stare at and empty body of water, live on the ocean.
Comment Submitted by Drew S - April 10, 2015
Mr Bodian stated it very well. Mr McCormick is out of touch with a large percentage of cruisers. If we wanted to stay in marinas, and had the $, we would do that. Many just don't want to be in marinas. And FL doesn't even have capacity for everyone to be on mooring balls or in marinas. The navigable waters have been, and still are, public property, and should remain that way. Waterfront property owners knew the laws when they bought the property. They don't own the water. Let's make sure it stays that way.
Comment Submitted by Marc Bodian - April 10, 2015
While Mr. McCormick is entitled to his opinion, the waterways are not owned by the people who live on the shores. Nor does the US allow for restrictions on freedom of movement of it's citizens. I have no doubt people, like Mr. McCormick, who have no vested interest in cruising, fail to see the loss Florida will feel if this passes. I personally spent several thousand dollars during the time we cruised through from January into March 2015. Rather than cross back from the Bahamas, we have decided to skip Florida on the return and go directly to South Carolina. Next year, if they choose to pass this very anti American legislation, we will skip them on the way down as well. This is simply an attempt by some land owners to gain control or "ownership" of the waterways by their property. No one should "own" Americas waterways any more than it's other public lands. This is not a "safety" issue, this is a greed issue.
Comment Submitted by NOEL COUTURE - April 10, 2015
Mr McCormick Do Not Agree With Your Comment and would Bet You do not cruse
Comment Submitted by Sonny Reeves - April 10, 2015
I agree with Bob and Henk. the comment is ridiculous. Boaters will vote by avoiding places that cost extra when possible. All derelict boats should be removed at owners expense under existing laws. Any boater that is living aboard should keep their boat up and maintain proper MSD and pump out. It is all about respect.
Comment Submitted by Bob - April 10, 2015
The prior comment is absurd. Cruisers spend plenty on dining, parts and groceries but I don't know many folks,cruisers or not, that can afford $100 per night in a marina in addition to other expenses of boating. As far as a fee to be in Florida, we are citizens of the U.S.
Comment Submitted by Henk, a cruiser - April 9, 2015
Mr. McCormick, you obviously cannot be a cruiser for suggesting another lifestyle for cruisers. They would not be cruisers anymore. If this law passes, you can be assured that other restrictive laws will be proposed and passed by the legislatures. One may affect you personally which you may oppose, but there will not be anyone helping you defend your rights, as there will be no one left to help you.
Comment Submitted by Glenn McCormick - April 9, 2015
If cruising boaters stayed at marinas instead of on-the-hook, then there would be an economic gain to those areas. They'd help marinas survive & still shop locally, just not by dinghy. Anchoring is only costing Florida money. Maybe Florida should enact a $300 entry-fee like The Bahamas do.
Explore More News & Articles In Specific Cruising Areas
Recent Videos
Plan Your Boating Adventures with Waterway Guide
Waterway Guide's new Mobile App on iPad Mini with maps, data links, and downloadable guide books
Fuel Prices for Boating at Waterwayguide.com
Purchase a Guide
  • 4,000 Marinas
  • Thousands of anchorages
  • Updated Charts
  • Mile-by-Mile Navigation
  • Highlighted Alerts & Cautions
  • Full-Color Aerial Photographs
Download The App

The Waterway Guide App Makes it easy to leave reviews, use our explorer, and view waterway guide materials all on the go!