Skip Gundlach of Flying Pig fame attended the meeting and wrote up a
very concise and insightful summary of the proceedings. He has asked
me to re-post it here for him.

=========================================

This meeting was attended by more than 50 folks, of all stripes.

Unfortunately for some of the attendees who were expecting a Q/A
forum, this was really a means for the FWC to explain the proposed
plan.

Key to all this, including the paper forms they passed out and asked
folks to fill in their preferences on several key concepts regarding
what really seems like a stab at dealing with derelict boats, was that
the numbers you see if you go to their website to fill in the same
sort of information (SSCA put out a notice to their members to fill in
a similar form on their site, whether or not you were a member) are
what were emphatically described as "Placeholders" - that is, a number
for the sake of illustration only, not for a proposal.

The same was true for a variety of other variables. Attendees were
strongly encouraged to include comments after indicating a level of
agreement with any given concept, as well as the opportunity to
specify a number in any of the instances of placeholder numbers, or a
word, in the case of placeholder words.

So, for example, Concept 2, which dealt with IF anchoring restrictions
were to be enacted, asked what setback from seawall or public
dockage/launching, etc. would be appropriate. The presenter was
careful to point out that zero was an acceptable number to put in the
blank after 50, 100, 150 and 200 feet tick-mark sections, or any other
number you might feel appropriate.

They went on to say that WE were not the problem - those attending
paid attention to their boats and their responsibilities; instead, it
was the apparently abandoned, and subject to becoming navigation
hazards, "stored" boats which litter the landscape (waterways) in FL.
(Stored was another placeholder word, along with attempts to define a
stored boat, and another concept section dealt with what represented
an illegal boat. Both looked for comment on how to define same if the
placeholder words were unacceptable or insufficient definition.)

The presenter went on to say that wealthy waterfront landowners were
not the instigators here, and that most of them actually were active
boaters and sympathetic to OUR interests, but upset by apparent
derelicts (some of which, in fact, WERE such, and became hazards to
navigation and other nuisance).

Anyone who cared to speak could register to do so, and was given 3
minutes to say whatever they wanted. Representatives from
municipalities, TowBoatUS, SSCA and other large entities mixed in with
maritime lawyers, waterfront owners and individual boaters.

In Vero Beach (this scenario will be replicated EXACTLY in Bradenton
tonight), there was exactly one landowner of the stripe which is
tarred with the problem brush ("get your trailer park out of my front
yard") of how this ever got any traction whatsoever; the rest of the
landowners were very supportive of enforcing current laws to deal with
derelict boats but otherwise very much against any restrictions on
anchoring.

Additional points of interest covered the proliferation of
increasingly expensive moorings removing any reasonable opportunity
for anchoring (by taking the anchor-able bottom available), along with
the lack of liability for failure of same by the leasing authority;
i.e., if the mooring fails, and your boat is damaged, or does damage,
along the way to its eventual resting place, it's your problem, not
the lessor of the mooring. Suggestions were made that FREE moorings
would be appropriate, if implemented, but otherwise they narrowed the
opportunity for free access to the waterways. Those items, and others
regarding moorings, is a matter of dissatisfaction, but not germane to
the actual purpose of the meeting.

The purpose of the meeting was to gather as much direct written input
as possible before collating all that information to present to the
legislature. The head of the FWC was firm in pointing out that they
were merely directed by the legislature to enforce the laws; they were
not either suggesting nor proposing that these concepts were in any
way other than a request for input from interested parties, as well as
several different concepts which might be utilized to address the real
problem, which is derelict boats.

I was a bit surprised to see that none that of the possible
authorities who spoke - the maritime lawyer, TBUS, or SSCA - addressed
the federal law regarding free access to navigable waterways. I
brought that up, with deference to all those above who preceded me as
being better informed than I, in my 3 minutes. Observers said that my
comments changed the tenor of the meeting :{))

In the end, folks got to vent, or explain; there were no decisions or
other movement toward resolution, as that was not the purpose of the
meeting. Several folks who'd registered to speak took a pass when
their names were called; I'm guessing that they came to rant, but
found that this was not a forum, but an info-and opinion-gathering
exercise, and so stood down.

I'm expecting that Wally Moran, of boating magazine fame, will have
more cogent reporting than the above, but that's how I saw it from my
seat.

L8R

Skip

Morgan 461 #2
SV Flying Pig KI4MPC
See our galleries at www.justpickone.org/skip/gallery !
Follow us at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheFlyingPigLog
and/or http://groups.google.com/group/flyingpiglog

When a man comes to like a sea life, he is not fit to live on land.
- Dr. Samuel Johnson

On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 10:15:26 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

Skip Gundlach of Flying Pig fame attended the meeting and wrote up a
very concise and insightful summary of the proceedings. He has asked
me to re-post it here for him.

=========================================

This meeting was attended by more than 50 folks, of all stripes.

Unfortunately for some of the attendees who were expecting a Q/A
forum, this was really a means for the FWC to explain the proposed
plan.

Key to all this, including the paper forms they passed out and asked
folks to fill in their preferences on several key concepts regarding
what really seems like a stab at dealing with derelict boats, was that
the numbers you see if you go to their website to fill in the same
sort of information (SSCA put out a notice to their members to fill in
a similar form on their site, whether or not you were a member) are
what were emphatically described as "Placeholders" - that is, a number
for the sake of illustration only, not for a proposal.

The same was true for a variety of other variables. Attendees were
strongly encouraged to include comments after indicating a level of
agreement with any given concept, as well as the opportunity to
specify a number in any of the instances of placeholder numbers, or a
word, in the case of placeholder words.

So, for example, Concept 2, which dealt with IF anchoring restrictions
were to be enacted, asked what setback from seawall or public
dockage/launching, etc. would be appropriate. The presenter was
careful to point out that zero was an acceptable number to put in the
blank after 50, 100, 150 and 200 feet tick-mark sections, or any other
number you might feel appropriate.

They went on to say that WE were not the problem - those attending
paid attention to their boats and their responsibilities; instead, it
was the apparently abandoned, and subject to becoming navigation
hazards, "stored" boats which litter the landscape (waterways) in FL.
(Stored was another placeholder word, along with attempts to define a
stored boat, and another concept section dealt with what represented
an illegal boat. Both looked for comment on how to define same if the
placeholder words were unacceptable or insufficient definition.)

The presenter went on to say that wealthy waterfront landowners were
not the instigators here, and that most of them actually were active
boaters and sympathetic to OUR interests, but upset by apparent
derelicts (some of which, in fact, WERE such, and became hazards to
navigation and other nuisance).

Anyone who cared to speak could register to do so, and was given 3
minutes to say whatever they wanted. Representatives from
municipalities, TowBoatUS, SSCA and other large entities mixed in with
maritime lawyers, waterfront owners and individual boaters.

In Vero Beach (this scenario will be replicated EXACTLY in Bradenton
tonight), there was exactly one landowner of the stripe which is
tarred with the problem brush ("get your trailer park out of my front
yard") of how this ever got any traction whatsoever; the rest of the
landowners were very supportive of enforcing current laws to deal with
derelict boats but otherwise very much against any restrictions on
anchoring.

Additional points of interest covered the proliferation of
increasingly expensive moorings removing any reasonable opportunity
for anchoring (by taking the anchor-able bottom available), along with
the lack of liability for failure of same by the leasing authority;
i.e., if the mooring fails, and your boat is damaged, or does damage,
along the way to its eventual resting place, it's your problem, not
the lessor of the mooring. Suggestions were made that FREE moorings
would be appropriate, if implemented, but otherwise they narrowed the
opportunity for free access to the waterways. Those items, and others
regarding moorings, is a matter of dissatisfaction, but not germane to
the actual purpose of the meeting.

The purpose of the meeting was to gather as much direct written input
as possible before collating all that information to present to the
legislature. The head of the FWC was firm in pointing out that they
were merely directed by the legislature to enforce the laws; they were
not either suggesting nor proposing that these concepts were in any
way other than a request for input from interested parties, as well as
several different concepts which might be utilized to address the real
problem, which is derelict boats.

I was a bit surprised to see that none that of the possible
authorities who spoke - the maritime lawyer, TBUS, or SSCA - addressed
the federal law regarding free access to navigable waterways. I
brought that up, with deference to all those above who preceded me as
being better informed than I, in my 3 minutes. Observers said that my
comments changed the tenor of the meeting :{))

In the end, folks got to vent, or explain; there were no decisions or
other movement toward resolution, as that was not the purpose of the
meeting. Several folks who'd registered to speak took a pass when
their names were called; I'm guessing that they came to rant, but
found that this was not a forum, but an info-and opinion-gathering
exercise, and so stood down.

I'm expecting that Wally Moran, of boating magazine fame, will have
more cogent reporting than the above, but that's how I saw it from my
seat.


Very good post. Thanks Wayne and Capt. Skippy. After reading it
my view of the FWC is that they STILL haven't listened to the
then Attorney General Charley Christ who told them in a very
stern letter that their job was to enforce the law and not
to make up laws or lobby for laws.

It appear the FWC is still attempting to make up or lobby
for stricter boating laws.

Somebody needs to point out to the FWC that they have no
business attempting to usurp the legislative branch of
Florida government.

--
Sir Gregory