Vessel exclusion zones in Florida beaches
 

I was dismayed to learn today that the beach from Pompano Beach to
Lauderdale-by-the-Sea is a "vessel exclusion" zone. The buoys say
"Ordinance 389" or some such, but Google turns up nothing relevant on
"exclusion zones" for "Flordia", "389", "Broward", "Lauderdale", etc.

This means I can't stop at my mom's private beachfront condominium and pick
up passengers with a (motorized) dinghy at the beach. Nor can you fish
from the beach! As soon as I tried beaching today, a state boat appeared
withing seconds and gave me a warning. (Apparently there are busybodies in
the buildings ashore that phone 911 if you try it.) The officer said you
can't even raise the outboard and oar yourself in, you can't have any power
available on the boat, not even an electric trolling motor.

When did Florida start outlawing fishing and boating from the beach?

Just how does one find such picayune, strictly local laws?

Is there a boater vs swimmer lobby?

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:10:13 -0600, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

When did Florida start outlawing fishing and boating from the beach?

Just how does one find such picayune, strictly local laws?

Is there a boater vs swimmer lobby?

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

That area is a heavily used public beach as you probably know. My
guess is that the town is trying to limit their liability from a
boater-swimmer collision. It may also be their way of banning PWC
rentals from the beach which are popular in some other areas.

How far out are the exclusion buoys? If not too far, you could anchor
outside and swim in.

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 02:42:29 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:10:13 -0600, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

When did Florida start outlawing fishing and boating from the beach?

Just how does one find such picayune, strictly local laws?

Is there a boater vs swimmer lobby?

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

That area is a heavily used public beach as you probably know. My
guess is that the town is trying to limit their liability from a
boater-swimmer collision. It may also be their way of banning PWC
rentals from the beach which are popular in some other areas.

How far out are the exclusion buoys? If not too far, you could anchor
outside and swim in.

This is interesting because I'm not sure they can do that.

Don't take this as fact, but Federal statute on beach ownership is to
the Highest High Mean Tide point - anything lower than that it open to
the public.

We just had a case down in Greenwich, CT and over in Jamestown, RI
where those owning beach front property wanted to restrict access to
"their" property which they took to mean Mean Lowest Low Tide. Ain't
so and the cases were bounced from state and Federal courts.

There was also an issue on a State beach about five years ago about
beaching boats where swimmers were. The State lost the case for the
same reason as the private owners.

Now, exclusionary zones are legal in terms of wake and speeds can be
regulated, but I'm not at all sure that landing rights can be denied.

Again, this is all from memory and I'm too lazy to look up the
references. Take it for what that's worth.

Later,

Tom

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:55:22 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
How far out are the exclusion buoys? If not too far, you could anchor
outside and swim in.

This is interesting because I'm not sure they can do that.

Don't take this as fact, but Federal statute on beach ownership is to
the Highest High Mean Tide point - anything lower than that it open to
the public.

We just had a case down in Greenwich, CT and over in Jamestown, RI
where those owning beach front property wanted to restrict access to
"their" property which they took to mean Mean Lowest Low Tide. Ain't
so and the cases were bounced from state and Federal courts.

There was also an issue on a State beach about five years ago about
beaching boats where swimmers were. The State lost the case for the
same reason as the private owners.

Now, exclusionary zones are legal in terms of wake and speeds can be
regulated, but I'm not at all sure that landing rights can be denied.

Again, this is all from memory and I'm too lazy to look up the
references. Take it for what that's worth.

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

The various park commissions that control the ocean beaches on the
south shore of Long Island have banned boat landing and launching for
years. I'm not sure if any of it has ever been tested in court but
the regulations are in place.

My sense of it is that the parks people are hyper sensitive to legal
liability issues, and that the various environmental factions back
them up because they'd prefer that NO one use THEIR beaches for any
purpose whatsoever.

Wayne.B writes:

That area is a heavily used public beach as you probably know.

Not really public. The area I am talking about is from Atlantic Blvd in
Pompano Beach, south to Commercial Blvd in Lauderdale-by-the-Sea. This is
not "public" beach in that it is all private buildings on the waterfront,
from hi-rise condominiums to small old cottages. It is definitely not a
public park like the Ft Lauderdale beach.

Florida seems to have case law about the "wet sand" being public, though.
"Wet sand" being the high-tide wash and below. This is apparently what
lets you walk up and down the beach frontage that is all private. The "dry
sand" above the high-water mark is privately owned (in this area).

Boating laws being a mishmash of admiralty/federal/state/local
jurisdictions, I'm having a lot of trouble sorting things out.

I have also gotten a written warning about not having flares on board when
I was pulled over for speed in a marina basin. Later I read the USCG
regulations that boats under 16' in the daytime don't (legally) require
flares (although of course it is a good idea to have em).

"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
. ..
Wayne.B writes:

That area is a heavily used public beach as you probably know.

Not really public. The area I am talking about is from Atlantic Blvd in
Pompano Beach, south to Commercial Blvd in Lauderdale-by-the-Sea. This is
not "public" beach in that it is all private buildings on the waterfront,
from hi-rise condominiums to small old cottages. It is definitely not a
public park like the Ft Lauderdale beach.

Florida seems to have case law about the "wet sand" being public, though.
"Wet sand" being the high-tide wash and below. This is apparently what
lets you walk up and down the beach frontage that is all private. The
"dry
sand" above the high-water mark is privately owned (in this area).

Boating laws being a mishmash of admiralty/federal/state/local
jurisdictions, I'm having a lot of trouble sorting things out.

I have also gotten a written warning about not having flares on board when
I was pulled over for speed in a marina basin. Later I read the USCG
regulations that boats under 16' in the daytime don't (legally) require
flares (although of course it is a good idea to have em).

I got pulled over last summer, and got the flare lecture. My boat's 14', and
the regs *seem* to say flares are required. Maybe. I ended up getting them
because if nothing else, they'll eliminate some hassles next time my son's
girlfriend with the short skirt is on board, and we're pulled over by four
23 yr old Coast Guard guys who are obsessed with my safety. snicker

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:11:24 -0600, Richard J Kinch
wrote:
Wayne.B writes:

That area is a heavily used public beach as you probably know.

Not really public. The area I am talking about is from Atlantic Blvd in
Pompano Beach, south to Commercial Blvd in Lauderdale-by-the-Sea. This is
not "public" beach in that it is all private buildings on the waterfront,
from hi-rise condominiums to small old cottages. It is definitely not a
public park like the Ft Lauderdale beach.
====================

I'm familiar with that stretch of beach. It's true that it is not a
park, but is readily accessible to the general population in many
places via a number of public walkways tucked in between the condos,
beach bars and old Florida funky motels.

You wouldn't happen to be a PWC operator by any chance? If so, bear
in mind that careless PWC operation is one of the primary factors
leading to the current state of over regulation.

Wayne.B writes:

You wouldn't happen to be a PWC operator by any chance? If so, bear
in mind that careless PWC operation is one of the primary factors
leading to the current state of over regulation.

No, not a PWC, but a 14' inflatable.

I talked on the phone to a Florida Marine Patrol officer on desk duty
today. He said he wasn't familiar with the ordinance and that he would
call me back tomorrow after he researched it. He did remark that the buoys
300 ft off the shoreline were put in only a year or two ago. Now I wonder
if there wasn't a 9/11 super-security justification for some new strict
regulations.

He also added that personally he thought it stunk if you couldn't beach
your boat. I guess there's a high likelihood than any Marine Patrol
officer is going to be a boating enthusiast in real life, and be
sympathetic to your problems if you're trying to have a law-abiding good
time with the kids.

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:02:48 -0600, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

He did remark that the buoys
300 ft off the shoreline were put in only a year or two ago. Now I wonder
if there wasn't a 9/11 super-security justification for some new strict
regulations.

That's a good point. I know over in Narragansett Bay, the bridge
restrictions are no stopping, anchoring or trolling within 500 feet of
the bridges and the Navy base shore. The shore line is bouyed, but
the bridges aren't.

They aren't enforcing it though - it almost impossible to.

Later,

Tom

"Patty O'Furniture" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:02:48 -0600, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

He did remark that the buoys
300 ft off the shoreline were put in only a year or two ago. Now I wonder
if there wasn't a 9/11 super-security justification for some new strict
regulations.

That's a good point. I know over in Narragansett Bay, the bridge
restrictions are no stopping, anchoring or trolling within 500 feet of
the bridges and the Navy base shore. The shore line is bouyed, but
the bridges aren't.

They aren't enforcing it though - it almost impossible to.

Later,

Tom


Navy base in N-Bay? Was it installed after 1970, or was I below, making a
sandwich when my dad cruised us through the bay way back then?

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:04:11 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:


Navy base in N-Bay? Was it installed after 1970, or was I below, making a
sandwich when my dad cruised us through the bay way back then?

Isn't Quonset Point, the Home of the Seabees, still there?

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:04:11 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:


Navy base in N-Bay? Was it installed after 1970, or was I below, making a
sandwich when my dad cruised us through the bay way back then?

Isn't Quonset Point, the Home of the Seabees, still there?

Dunno. I'm still dealing with the flu. I expect to be catered to for a few
more days. Let me know what you find out about this Navy base. And, send
over a couple of lap dancers or something.

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 06:33:26 -0500, HarryKrause
wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

"Patty" O'Furniture?

Hey, I realize it is the Day for Wearing the Green, but there's no need
to crossdress

You never know. :)

Later,

Tom

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:31:22 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:04:11 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:


Navy base in N-Bay? Was it installed after 1970, or was I below, making a
sandwich when my dad cruised us through the bay way back then?

Isn't Quonset Point, the Home of the Seabees, still there?

Quonset is still there but has been closed for a while. I believe
there is a ANG group there, but not sure.

Later,

Tom

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:04:11 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Patty O'Furniture" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:02:48 -0600, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

He did remark that the buoys
300 ft off the shoreline were put in only a year or two ago. Now I wonder
if there wasn't a 9/11 super-security justification for some new strict
regulations.

That's a good point. I know over in Narragansett Bay, the bridge
restrictions are no stopping, anchoring or trolling within 500 feet of
the bridges and the Navy base shore. The shore line is bouyed, but
the bridges aren't.

They aren't enforcing it though - it almost impossible to.

Navy base in N-Bay? Was it installed after 1970, or was I below, making a
sandwich when my dad cruised us through the bay way back then?

It's the Navy's Antisubmarine Warfare Center in Newport, RI. Entering
the Bay from East Passage, it's right after the Newport Bridge on the
Starboard side.

I'm pretty sure it was there in the '70s.

Later,

Tom

"Patty O'Furniture" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:04:11 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Patty O'Furniture" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:02:48 -0600, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

He did remark that the buoys
300 ft off the shoreline were put in only a year or two ago. Now I
wonder
if there wasn't a 9/11 super-security justification for some new strict
regulations.

That's a good point. I know over in Narragansett Bay, the bridge
restrictions are no stopping, anchoring or trolling within 500 feet of
the bridges and the Navy base shore. The shore line is bouyed, but
the bridges aren't.

They aren't enforcing it though - it almost impossible to.

Navy base in N-Bay? Was it installed after 1970, or was I below, making a
sandwich when my dad cruised us through the bay way back then?

It's the Navy's Antisubmarine Warfare Center in Newport, RI. Entering
the Bay from East Passage, it's right after the Newport Bridge on the
Starboard side.

I'm pretty sure it was there in the '70s.

Later,

Tom

I must've been making a sandwich. But, I was pretty attentive to notes on
the charts, especially since my father once drove us right through an area
where there was a target practice ship parked, and got a rather terse
talking to from a sub. Pretty funny, at least to my sister and I. :-) Dad
was not amused.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Patty O'Furniture" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:04:11 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Patty O'Furniture" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:02:48 -0600, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

He did remark that the buoys
300 ft off the shoreline were put in only a year or two ago. Now I
wonder
if there wasn't a 9/11 super-security justification for some new strict
regulations.

That's a good point. I know over in Narragansett Bay, the bridge
restrictions are no stopping, anchoring or trolling within 500 feet of
the bridges and the Navy base shore. The shore line is bouyed, but
the bridges aren't.

They aren't enforcing it though - it almost impossible to.

Navy base in N-Bay? Was it installed after 1970, or was I below, making a
sandwich when my dad cruised us through the bay way back then?

It's the Navy's Antisubmarine Warfare Center in Newport, RI. Entering
the Bay from East Passage, it's right after the Newport Bridge on the
Starboard side.

I'm pretty sure it was there in the '70s.

Later,

Tom

I must've been making a sandwich. But, I was pretty attentive to notes on
the charts, especially since my father once drove us right through an area
where there was a target practice ship parked, and got a rather terse
talking to from a sub. Pretty funny, at least to my sister and I. :-) Dad
was not amused.


Before the correction robots get all fussy, I should add that this area was
not in N-Bay, but out in the Block Island Sound, if I recall, maybe halfway
between BI and Montauk, maybe somewhat north of a line drawn between those
two places.

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:23:03 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

Before the correction robots get all fussy, I should add that this area was
not in N-Bay, but out in the Block Island Sound, if I recall, maybe halfway
between BI and Montauk, maybe somewhat north of a line drawn between those
two places.

Yep - it's called a torpedo range. Purple colored area on the chart.

There are four of them in that area :)

Later,

Tom

"Dan Harris" wrote in message
...


Is there a boater vs swimmer lobby?


The buoys are there to indicate to boaters that they may not approach
closer than 300 feet from the beach.

This form of local ordinance is fairly common along the beaches in
southeast Florida and includes parts of Pompano Beach and Ft.
Lauderdale as well as other municipalities.

The intent is to limit the interaction between propellers and
swimmers! This is along the unprotected ocean. It is a dangerous and
risky practice to allow boaters along the surf line in close proximity
to swimmers.

This has nothing to do with fishing or 9/11.

HTH

Dan

Probably nobody here will talk to me ever again, but this regulation sounds
like a good idea. Combine swimmers, propellors, booze and an average
frequency of stupid operators which we can assume is no different than
automobile drivers, and you've got a reason to be concerned.

"Dan Harris" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:10:13 -0600, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

I was dismayed to learn today that the beach from Pompano Beach to
Lauderdale-by-the-Sea is a "vessel exclusion" zone. The buoys say
"Ordinance 389" or some such, but Google turns up nothing relevant on
"exclusion zones" for "Flordia", "389", "Broward", "Lauderdale", etc.

This means I can't stop at my mom's private beachfront condominium and
pick
up passengers with a (motorized) dinghy at the beach. Nor can you fish
from the beach! As soon as I tried beaching today, a state boat appeared
withing seconds and gave me a warning. (Apparently there are busybodies
in
the buildings ashore that phone 911 if you try it.) The officer said you
can't even raise the outboard and oar yourself in, you can't have any
power
available on the boat, not even an electric trolling motor.

When did Florida start outlawing fishing and boating from the beach?

Just how does one find such picayune, strictly local laws?

Is there a boater vs swimmer lobby?


The buoys are there to indicate to boaters that they may not approach
closer than 300 feet from the beach.

This form of local ordinance is fairly common along the beaches in
southeast Florida and includes parts of Pompano Beach and Ft.
Lauderdale as well as other municipalities.

The intent is to limit the interaction between propellers and
swimmers! This is along the unprotected ocean. It is a dangerous and
risky practice to allow boaters along the surf line in close proximity
to swimmers.

This has nothing to do with fishing or 9/11.

HTH

Dan
--
Dan Harris


I agree with your logic Dan. However, if an entire stretch of beach is
closed off to boaters then tit is being taken to an extreme.

We have the some restrictions at certain beach areas on Lake Erie, such as
at Cedar Point beach, Huntington beach, Edgewater beach and at the north end
of Kelley's Island. We would normally just got to one end of the restricted
area, set anchor at about 4 feet and then pull the boat closer to shore
(perhaps to waist deep water) with a stern line and then set a stern anchor.
That way we could enjoy the beach while having the comforts of the boat at
hand.

"JimH" wrote in message
...

"Dan Harris" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:10:13 -0600, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

I was dismayed to learn today that the beach from Pompano Beach to
Lauderdale-by-the-Sea is a "vessel exclusion" zone. The buoys say
"Ordinance 389" or some such, but Google turns up nothing relevant on
"exclusion zones" for "Flordia", "389", "Broward", "Lauderdale", etc.

This means I can't stop at my mom's private beachfront condominium and
pick
up passengers with a (motorized) dinghy at the beach. Nor can you fish
from the beach! As soon as I tried beaching today, a state boat appeared
withing seconds and gave me a warning. (Apparently there are busybodies
in
the buildings ashore that phone 911 if you try it.) The officer said you
can't even raise the outboard and oar yourself in, you can't have any
power
available on the boat, not even an electric trolling motor.

When did Florida start outlawing fishing and boating from the beach?

Just how does one find such picayune, strictly local laws?

Is there a boater vs swimmer lobby?


The buoys are there to indicate to boaters that they may not approach
closer than 300 feet from the beach.

This form of local ordinance is fairly common along the beaches in
southeast Florida and includes parts of Pompano Beach and Ft.
Lauderdale as well as other municipalities.

The intent is to limit the interaction between propellers and
swimmers! This is along the unprotected ocean. It is a dangerous and
risky practice to allow boaters along the surf line in close proximity
to swimmers.

This has nothing to do with fishing or 9/11.

HTH

Dan
--
Dan Harris


I agree with your logic Dan. However, if an entire stretch of beach is
closed off to boaters then it is being taken to an extreme.

We have the some restrictions at certain beach areas on Lake Erie, such as
at Cedar Point beach, Huntington beach, Edgewater beach and at the north
end of Kelley's Island. We would normally just got to one end of the
restricted area, set anchor at about 4 feet and then pull the boat closer
to shore (perhaps to waist deep water) with a stern line and then set a
stern anchor. That way we could enjoy the beach while having the comforts
of the boat at hand.




Edit text. Darn spellchecker almost caused my post to be rated x.

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:29:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

Probably nobody here will talk to me ever again, but this regulation sounds
like a good idea. Combine swimmers, propellors, booze and an average
frequency of stupid operators which we can assume is no different than
automobile drivers, and you've got a reason to be concerned.

HEATHEN!!!! APOSTATE!!!! BLASPHEMER!!!! HERETIC!!!!

STONE HIM - STONE HIM NOW!!!!

Later,

Tom

Dan Harris writes:

This form of local ordinance is fairly common along the beaches in
southeast Florida and includes parts of Pompano Beach and Ft.
Lauderdale as well as other municipalities.

True. The Florida Marine Partol officer called me back today, and said
that they were enforcing a town (Lauderdale-by-the-Sea in this case,
http://www.lauderdalebythesea-fl.gov/ on the Web, no ordinances online
however) ordinance, and that the beaches of the ENTIRE COUNTY were
covered contiguously by a patchwork of these local ordinances excluding
vessels.

Odd that commerical rentals of Jet Skis are permitted at a certain
nearby hotel's beach frontage. Do I have a right to land there? The
wet sand is public property, right?

Odd that Florida statutes prohibit localities from "regulating the
anchorage of non-live-aboard vessels engaged in the exercise of rights
of navigation." (FS 327.60, see http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/ ).

I called the LBTS town hall and spoke to a clerk and to a code
enforcement officer. They were unfamiliar with the specific ordinance
and were startled themselves to learn when they looked it up that it
excludes everything that provides transportation on water, including
kayaks, canoes, etc., hard or inflatable, powered or not. Even toy boats
it would seem.

Specific exceptions allow surfboards and sailboards. These are not a
hazard to swimmers?

The intent is to limit the interaction between propellers and
swimmers! This is along the unprotected ocean. It is a dangerous and
risky practice to allow boaters along the surf line in close proximity
to swimmers.

Not necessarily. Why outlaw a kayak and paddle? An inflatable with
engine raised and rowed in? 24 hrs a day? Across the entire county?

This has nothing to do with fishing ...

Surf fishing is also excluded in another ordinance, I am told. I guess
fishhooks are always and everywhere a danger to swimmers.

or 9/11.

I don't mean 9/11 specifically, but a general tone of increased petty
security impositions in general, as a general tenor of the times after
9/11. These buoys appeared a year or two ago, and in the 40-odd years
previous that I have lived there, there were no such restrictions.

During WWII the above-water Copenhagen shipwreck, about 800 yards
offshore from this same spot where I was apprehended, was used for
bombardment target practice by US Navy aircraft!

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:29:51 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"Dan Harris" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:10:13 -0600, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

I was dismayed to learn today that the beach from Pompano Beach to
Lauderdale-by-the-Sea is a "vessel exclusion" zone. The buoys say
"Ordinance 389" or some such, but Google turns up nothing relevant on
"exclusion zones" for "Flordia", "389", "Broward", "Lauderdale", etc.

This means I can't stop at my mom's private beachfront condominium and
pick
up passengers with a (motorized) dinghy at the beach. Nor can you fish
from the beach! As soon as I tried beaching today, a state boat appeared
withing seconds and gave me a warning. (Apparently there are busybodies
in
the buildings ashore that phone 911 if you try it.) The officer said you
can't even raise the outboard and oar yourself in, you can't have any
power
available on the boat, not even an electric trolling motor.

When did Florida start outlawing fishing and boating from the beach?

Just how does one find such picayune, strictly local laws?

Is there a boater vs swimmer lobby?


The buoys are there to indicate to boaters that they may not approach
closer than 300 feet from the beach.

This form of local ordinance is fairly common along the beaches in
southeast Florida and includes parts of Pompano Beach and Ft.
Lauderdale as well as other municipalities.

The intent is to limit the interaction between propellers and
swimmers! This is along the unprotected ocean. It is a dangerous and
risky practice to allow boaters along the surf line in close proximity
to swimmers.

This has nothing to do with fishing or 9/11.

HTH

Dan
--
Dan Harris


I agree with your logic Dan. However, if an entire stretch of beach is
closed off to boaters then tit is being taken to an extreme.

We have the some restrictions at certain beach areas on Lake Erie, such as
at Cedar Point beach, Huntington beach, Edgewater beach and at the north end
of Kelley's Island. We would normally just got to one end of the restricted
area, set anchor at about 4 feet and then pull the boat closer to shore
(perhaps to waist deep water) with a stern line and then set a stern anchor.
That way we could enjoy the beach while having the comforts of the boat at
hand.



I would agree that restricting an entire stretch of beach effectively
isolates boaters from land access. Many boaters like to "raft", beach,
or otherwise utilize a spot of land to anchor near.

I agree that sections of a beach, normally allocated as a swim area,
should have such restrictions for obvious safety reasons, but there
should be reasonable attempts made to accommodate the needs of boaters
as well. Some "no swim" buoys, and a dedicated landing/ beaching zone
perhaps.

Dave

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 06:43:10 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote:

I would agree that restricting an entire stretch of beach effectively
isolates boaters from land access. Many boaters like to "raft", beach,
or otherwise utilize a spot of land to anchor near.

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

Here in south western Florida it is idle speed only inside of 200
yards, but OK to beach in most places. More commonly, we anchor off
the beach in 3 or 4 feet of water and wade in.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 06:43:10 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote:

I would agree that restricting an entire stretch of beach effectively
isolates boaters from land access. Many boaters like to "raft", beach,
or otherwise utilize a spot of land to anchor near.

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

Here in south western Florida it is idle speed only inside of 200
yards, but OK to beach in most places. More commonly, we anchor off
the beach in 3 or 4 feet of water and wade in.


Around here, some of the Finger Lakes and local waters are havens for yahoos
in floating Camaros, who have no awareness of a world outside their own
boats. In other areas, things are much better. These contrasts are well
known to normal boaters.

Perhaps your part of Florida has more seasoned boaters, and the area being
discussed in other messages is more....yahoo territory? Or something? Just
wondering.....

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:06:11 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Perhaps your part of Florida has more seasoned boaters, and the area being
discussed in other messages is more....yahoo territory? Or something? Just
wondering.....

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

It's hard to say. There are yahoos everywhere and we have our share.
There are big differences in population between the west coast and
east coast however so perhaps are yahoo density has not yet reached
critical mass. We still have beaches here that are accessible only by
boat and are relatively unspoiled. Don't tell anyone though.

I lived on Cayuga Lake for a year back in the late 60s and don't
recall yahoos being a big issue but things change I guess.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:06:11 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Perhaps your part of Florida has more seasoned boaters, and the area being
discussed in other messages is more....yahoo territory? Or something? Just
wondering.....

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

It's hard to say. There are yahoos everywhere and we have our share.
There are big differences in population between the west coast and
east coast however so perhaps are yahoo density has not yet reached
critical mass. We still have beaches here that are accessible only by
boat and are relatively unspoiled. Don't tell anyone though.

Here, the yahoo factor is based on proximity to Rochester. The north end of
Canandaigua Lake is ridiculous. Not even worth boating on. And, Honeoye's
about the same.


I lived on Cayuga Lake for a year back in the late 60s and don't
recall yahoos being a big issue but things change I guess.


The West side of Cayuga now attracts large contingents of fools who think
it's fun to crank along the shore, maybe 100 off, and cause as much
turbulence as possible for the docks, swimmers and parked boats. This, while
the center of the lake is dead calm, and moving out 1/4 mile would make all
the difference in the world. The north end's better, though. I fish up that
way a lot, and it's fun to see some idiot come to a sudden stop in those
nice weeds, and spend 15 minutes in the water trying to hack the tangled
salad off the prop. :-)

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:13:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

The West side of Cayuga now attracts large contingents of fools who think
it's fun to crank along the shore, maybe 100 off, and cause as much
turbulence as possible for the docks, swimmers and parked boats.

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

That's the "look at me" factor at work. I was on the east side at
Lansing Station Road, about 10 miles north of Ithaca. It was a
beautiful spot but there was a railroad track between the house and
the lake with one train a day for the power plant as I recall.

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:10:13 -0600, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

I was dismayed to learn today that the beach from Pompano Beach to
Lauderdale-by-the-Sea is a "vessel exclusion" zone.

Yep. But because I own a water front home there, I get an exclusion.

There are plenty of local ordinances that would never survive legal
scrutiny but they survive because nobody wants to actually fight them
in court. This is particularly true in places where the sand meets the
sea and they probably don't have jurisdiction in the first place.

Hmmm. Florida Statutes 327.60(2) reads:

"... local governmental authorities are prohibited from regulating the
anchorage of non-live-aboard vessels engaged in the exercise of rights
of navigation."

Obviously, every little town would want to outlaw any outside boats and
keep their little private ocean. Does excluding the entire beach count as
"anchorage" or the "rights of navigation"?