FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Press Contact: Scott Croft, 703-461-2864,
Date: November 1, 2007

BOATU.S. MEMBERS PREVAIL IN FLORIDA ANCHORING DECISION

A recent Collier County, FL, court decision that found a restrictive
Marco Island recreational boat anchoring ordinance in violation of
state law could help lead to a statewide solution to Florida's
patchwork of local anchoring laws.

The Marco Island ordinance restricted recreational boaters to a
maximum 12-hour anchoring period when located within 300 feet of a
seawall, and maximum six-day anchoring period anywhere beyond that
distance. Collier County Judge Rob Crown's October 26th decision said
that the Marco Island ordinance was "an unlawful regulation of
publicly owned sovereign waterways in violation of Florida law."

BoatU.S. Vice President of Government Affairs, Margaret Podlich, said,
"Across Florida other local governments have enacted similar
ordinances, that unfairly give local interests control over public
waterways. We hope this court decision contributes to a statewide
solution that is fair to all Florida citizens." Earlier this year, the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission held a series of six
stakeholder meetings around the state to hear concerns about anchoring
issues.

To get the anchoring case to court, BoatU.S. member Dave Dumas, a
resident of Marco Island, FL, intentionally broke the law in January
of this year because he and other local boaters from the Sailing
Association of Marco Island thought it was overly restrictive.

Another BoatU.S. member, Donald Day, Esq., of the Naples, FL, law firm
Barry, Day, McFee & Martin, handled the case pro bono.

Said Day, "As a result of Judge Crown's decision and current state
statutes, many local governments around the state have advised me that
they will not be enforcing their anchoring ordinances and will look to
the state for guidance in the form of a uniform anchoring regulation.
A lot of credit goes to BoatU.S. members who contacted their local
governments to voice their displeasure with these inconsistent,
arbitrary and restrictive ordinances."

Said Dumas, "The City Council thought they could do whatever they
wanted and chose to take the position of a select few in this
community. But they should have maintained a neutral position and
arbitrated a solution that benefited all citizens."

In Marco Island, a yet-to-be-announced special closed-door meeting of
City Council members and the city attorney will decide whether to
appeal or accept Judge Crown's decision.

BoatU.S. - Boat Owners Association of The United States - is the
nation's leading advocate for recreational boaters with over 650,000
members.

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 11:38:32 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Press Contact: Scott Croft, 703-461-2864,
Date: November 1, 2007

BOATU.S. MEMBERS PREVAIL IN FLORIDA ANCHORING DECISION

A recent Collier County, FL, court decision that found a restrictive
Marco Island recreational boat anchoring ordinance in violation of
state law could help lead to a statewide solution to Florida's
patchwork of local anchoring laws.

The Marco Island ordinance restricted recreational boaters to a
maximum 12-hour anchoring period when located within 300 feet of a
seawall, and maximum six-day anchoring period anywhere beyond that
distance. Collier County Judge Rob Crown's October 26th decision said
that the Marco Island ordinance was "an unlawful regulation of
publicly owned sovereign waterways in violation of Florida law."

BoatU.S. Vice President of Government Affairs, Margaret Podlich, said,
"Across Florida other local governments have enacted similar
ordinances, that unfairly give local interests control over public
waterways. We hope this court decision contributes to a statewide
solution that is fair to all Florida citizens." Earlier this year, the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission held a series of six
stakeholder meetings around the state to hear concerns about anchoring
issues.

To get the anchoring case to court, BoatU.S. member Dave Dumas, a
resident of Marco Island, FL, intentionally broke the law in January
of this year because he and other local boaters from the Sailing
Association of Marco Island thought it was overly restrictive.

Another BoatU.S. member, Donald Day, Esq., of the Naples, FL, law firm
Barry, Day, McFee & Martin, handled the case pro bono.

Said Day, "As a result of Judge Crown's decision and current state
statutes, many local governments around the state have advised me that
they will not be enforcing their anchoring ordinances and will look to
the state for guidance in the form of a uniform anchoring regulation.
A lot of credit goes to BoatU.S. members who contacted their local
governments to voice their displeasure with these inconsistent,
arbitrary and restrictive ordinances."

Said Dumas, "The City Council thought they could do whatever they
wanted and chose to take the position of a select few in this
community. But they should have maintained a neutral position and
arbitrated a solution that benefited all citizens."

In Marco Island, a yet-to-be-announced special closed-door meeting of
City Council members and the city attorney will decide whether to
appeal or accept Judge Crown's decision.

BoatU.S. - Boat Owners Association of The United States - is the
nation's leading advocate for recreational boaters with over 650,000
members.

This is all good news of course, particularly to us since it is in our
home base cruising backyard of SWFL. Boat US deserves little or no
credit however. All of the risky and potentially expensive legal work
was done by concerned locals, and they did a great job. I think we
need to find ways of prodding Boat US into becoming a lot more
proactive with regards to fighting these legal battles. Unfortunately
they seem much more interested in pursuing their commercial interests
like insurance.

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 15:29:10 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

Boat US deserves little or no credit however.

BoatUS likes to take credit for a lot of things nationally they put no
money or effort into.

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 15:55:53 -0500, wrote:

I suppose that will be true until some guy anchors his house barge
next to your dock and decides to live there.
Ft Myers Beach had the same issue with the floating slum they had
behind Matansas Pass. They really had a hard time regulating illegal
dumping, noise and general eyesores bobbing a couple hundred feet form
some guys million dollar house.

Yes, I'm familiar with all that. The Florida law, still in effect,
addresses those issues by making a distinction between cruisers and
liveaboards. The Marco Island law was onerous because it was directed
at cruisers, and because of the 300 ft seawall restriction on
anchoring.

No legislation is required to control noise and dumping. Those laws
already exist.

wrote:
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 15:29:10 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

This is all good news of course, particularly to us since it is in our
home base cruising backyard of SWFL.

I suppose that will be true until some guy anchors his house barge
next to your dock and decides to live there.


Crikey...it might be Crazy Larry from Charleston. :}

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 20:52:57 -0400, HK wrote:

Crikey...it might be Crazy Larry from Charleston. :}

Who has been strangely quiet lately.

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 21:31:49 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 20:52:57 -0400, HK wrote:

Crikey...it might be Crazy Larry from Charleston. :}

Who has been strangely quiet lately.

His tin foil hat fell off and he's under the control of the
government.

On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 10:00:08 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

His tin foil hat fell off and he's under the control of the
government.

I thought it was the Iluminati he was worried about. Hope he's OK.

On Nov 1, 4:55 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 15:29:10 -0400, Wayne.B

wrote:
This is all good news of course, particularly to us since it is in our
home base cruising backyard of SWFL.

I suppose that will be true until some guy anchors his house barge
next to your dock and decides to live there.
Ft Myers Beach had the same issue with the floating slum they had
behind Matansas Pass. They really had a hard time regulating illegal
dumping, noise and general eyesores bobbing a couple hundred feet form
some guys million dollar house.

I didn't really have a "Vick" in that fight but it was easy to see
both sides had a point.

As a boater, and someone who has lived on the water most of my life,
if your going to live on the water, you have to learn to take the good
with the bad, you have to recognize that the water behind your
property is not yours. Their will be times when someone decides to
park their boat right where you want it least, probably at the worst
possible time. If you buy a house on the water where eyesores tend to
drop anchor, and you paid a milloin dollors for it, that's your
mistake, "let the buyer beware". That's like someone that buy's a
house next to an airport, and wants us to feel sorry for him because
of all the noise. That's not going to happen.

On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 09:30:59 -0700, Capt John wrote:

On Nov 1, 4:55 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 15:29:10 -0400, Wayne.B

wrote:
This is all good news of course, particularly to us since it is in our
home base cruising backyard of SWFL.

I suppose that will be true until some guy anchors his house barge
next to your dock and decides to live there.
Ft Myers Beach had the same issue with the floating slum they had
behind Matansas Pass. They really had a hard time regulating illegal
dumping, noise and general eyesores bobbing a couple hundred feet form
some guys million dollar house.

I didn't really have a "Vick" in that fight but it was easy to see
both sides had a point.

As a boater, and someone who has lived on the water most of my life,
if your going to live on the water, you have to learn to take the good
with the bad, you have to recognize that the water behind your
property is not yours. Their will be times when someone decides to
park their boat right where you want it least, probably at the worst
possible time. If you buy a house on the water where eyesores tend to
drop anchor, and you paid a milloin dollors for it, that's your
mistake, "let the buyer beware". That's like someone that buy's a
house next to an airport, and wants us to feel sorry for him because
of all the noise. That's not going to happen.

I'm a product of similar background and circumstance and couldn't
agree more. Granted, an intolerable situation can arise once in awhile
but there's generally some way to deal with it other than an ordinance
that interferes with the rights of people that it shouldn't.

Rick