View Single Post
Old 08-10-2004, 05:48 PM   #58
Mee-n-Mac
Senior Member
 
Mee-n-Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,943
Thanks: 23
Thanked 111 Times in 51 Posts
Default Re-read the above posts please

Quote:
Originally Posted by KonaChick
Cabinfever..why should we employ Marine Patrols precious time to make sure you don't have any boats anchored off your shores?? As has been mentioned several times as long they don't put foot on land they are doing absolutely nothing illegal! You had to know before you bought the property that this was a popular high traffic area..didn't you venture out onto the island to see what the boat traffic was like before you inveseted in the property?? If you didn't you probably should have. {snip}
First things first, if you read the posts above you'll see that nowhere did CF ask to have the MP remove "any boats" (I've added emphasis above), any meaning all the way you've written it, from the shorelines. The word compromise was mentioned at least twice. As for a high traffic area, Outlaw's posts are dead on. It's not so much a question of legal or not, but rather a question of proper or not. Honestly put yourself in the position of a waterfront owner. Would you mind having multiple boats tied together anchored 1 foot from your front (side, back, whatever) yard ? Having said boats block your access by water to/from the shore ?? Swim lines (suggested by the MP, not CF) and no rafting zones (not yet discussed herein) are 2 methods of trying to work out the compromise between boaters and landowners rights as there are competing legitimate interests.

The question of public access and private use of beach area has come up before re: ocean front property. The rulings I'm familiar with, and I'd opine are pertinent to this discussion, tend to allow public access to areas below the high water mark (it's private land above). All well and good but they also aren't interpreted such that someone can have a party on the public land during low tide. The public access below private land is transitory in nature. Again the watchword was compromise, trying to respect both parties legitimate concerns.

I asked in a previous post and I'll ask again how far out would you be willing to tolerate anchored boats ? As a boater I too don't like the loss (from competing boats and/or increased housing development) of good anchorage but I also try to adhere to the old adage of walking a mile in the other guys shoes. I wouldn't like having boats anchored just off my dock, forcing me to run a veritable obstacle course to go to/from the lake ... forcing me to listen to their music instead of the more meliforous notes of umm, say a high powered "offshore" boat Some consideration for the other guys concerns was all that was being asked for. Barring such consideration we're all going to see more of the above 2 solutions, and likely even more restrictive approaches, as time goes by.
__________________
Mee'n'Mac
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity or ignorance. The latter are a lot more common than the former." - RAH
Mee-n-Mac is offline   Reply With Quote