The FWC meeting in Vero Beach Greetings. 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, its 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 whod registered to speak took a pass when their names were called; Im 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. Im expecting that Wally Moran, of boating magazine fame, will have more cogent reporting than the above, but thats how I saw it from my seat. L8R Skip Morgan 461 #2 SV Flying Pig KI4MPC See our galleries at justpickone.org/skip/gallery ! Follow us at groups.yahoo/group/TheFlyingPigLog and/or groups.google/group/flyingpiglog When a man comes to like a sea life, he is not fit to live on land. - Dr. Samuel Johnson
Posted on: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 13:02:37 +0000