I wrote recently about the increasing prevalence of fixed moorings in many popular Pacific Northwest anchorages, and touched briefly on the matter of permanently moored residents in those same areas. In particular, I highlighted the debate now taking place in Nanaimo regarding the Mark Bay anchorage, where the city is attempting to impose a time limit on anchoring in order to prevent derelicts and crowding out transient tourists with permanent residents. The locals who were there first take some umbrage at the suggestion they should be displaced for outsiders who are just passing through; the visitors think it’s inappropriate that the residents essentially claim ownership to patches of water that cannot be owned. So, governments are getting involved.
This provokes fairly strong reactions on both sides. On the one hand, it is a basic impingement on hundreds of years of nautical tradition and code: governments have repeatedly upheld (at least in the Western world) that they alone own the land below the tide line, and that apart from public interests in maintaining freely navigable channels, boaters are free to traverse or stop over any part of it. The boat that is there first is the one that others must avoid.
On the other hand, the sheer number of boats and the more or less fixed positions some of them have taken in some places have served to create an environment that is more akin to a set of docks or wharves, preventing any other vessels from safely anchoring, and creating certain environmental difficulties. In many ways, it is a different sort of use than nautical tradition or maritime law were designed to regulate. While anchoring has been, and is, protected, it has also come to be viewed distinctly from moorage, a more permanent state of affairs with different regulatory implications. I think when you get to a point where you view a particular patch of water as “yours” you are probably no longer covered under traditional anchoring rights: it’s a mooring.
Vancouver has fought this fight over the False Creek anchorage and further south, Bainbridge Island is doing so over Eagle Harbor, but in both cases it’s too soon to say how onerous the long-term effects might be. In the short-term, it has displaced some people who are just trying to live someplace (not a few to Nanaimo, prompting the Mark Bay controversy). This blog resonated with me (see entries from December 30, 2009 to February 1, 2010), since it’s by a guy who is basically trying to do the same thing we are. We are lucky enough to have a slip to retreat to; not everyone does, and I sympathize with those whose only offense is being in the way of rich yachties from out of town.
We’re in an unusual position with respect to this debate, since we both live aboard and travel. We have felt the frustration with paperwork and regulation when we are in a place like False Creek and are just trying to live our lives. When that deadline is creeping closer and the police are cruising past giving you the eye, it can feel very lonely and hopeless out there if you don’t have any other good options for relocation (say, around about Labor Day, when anchorages are often choked to capacity). I imagine it’s very much like being evicted from your home. Our home goes with us, of course, but a boat isn’t like a tent or even a car; something must be done with it, it has to be kept safe and secure, and there are a limited number of places where that can be done. Those places are even more limited if one must take into account the services and infrastructure required for living and making a living in today’s world.
As visitors, we want to be respectful, but we also want to, well, visit. I can well understand the motivation that locals may have to keep newcomers out of “their” spots, and the “mooring first” argument serves that end. But I can’t reconcile that with the prevailing right of free anchorage. It’s unfortunate that local governments have to get involved in this, and I agree that they will probably make a hash of doing so in some instances. On the other hand, this is why governments (or, democratic governments, at least) exist in the first place, to prevent one group’s “freedom” from impinging on that of another. The problem on our bays and coves now is that the transient uses envisioned by various navigation regulations have been supplanted by the alternative use as a place of more or less fixed abode. It’s difficult to imagine local government not becoming involved in that, just as it’s hard for all but the most hardcore libertarians to imagine a city without zoning or building codes. When more and more people with increasingly diverse interests are packing themselves into the same places, there’s going to have to be some party with authority to diminish and arbitrate disputes. That they will ultimately do so by inconveniencing all the parties involved is simply the price to be paid by all of us with varying demands on the resource.
“That they will ultimately do so by inconveniencing all the parties involved is simply the price to be paid by all of us with varying demands on the resource.”
unh-hunh
That they will ultimately do so by discovering who is financially contributing more to the political (i.e., non-governing) process and rewarding them through the decision-making process is simply the price to be paid by those of us who wanted or continued the “democracy” in the first place.
I agree that government is going to have to get involved. I further agree that it will create a hash of it, the more so because the issue’s dialogue of interests does not present with a clear interest for the decision-making entity.
Yes, well, I suppose the good news is that we at least know what to expect! Is corruption still corruption if it is predictable?
The more optimistic take might be that because there are few moneyed interests involved, there is at least some chance of an impartial adjudication of the matter. You’re certainly correct, in my experience at least, that local governments would prefer to avoid the matter entirely. There’s no clear win for politicians who might take up the issue.
“Is corruption still corruption if it is predictable?”
Predictable corruption mutates to “character flaw” in the case of a person, or what is euphemistically termed “The System” in the case of an institution.
My experience of local governments who face issues with no clear political win is that the outcome rests entirely on connected wins that might be in the offing. In other words, mutually beneficial relationships. But that was Ontario, not B.C.
A friend of mine had a “lodge” on a barge anchored in one of Puget Sound’s bays. It remained there for years until a shore-side neighbor complained that it interfered with his marine view. My friend thought about defending himself in the forthcoming suit, but in the end caved to the pressure and sold the lodge.
This issue got started here in the Northwest I believe due to the large number of derelict vessels moored or anchored in Puget Sound. During a storm, one or more of these vessels would sink, often with hundreds of gallons of fuel aboard. Having to pay for wreck removal, the govenrment started looking at ways to remove vessels before a problem developed.
In order to legally put down a mooring (anchor and mooring ball), a Corp of Engineers permit is required. The permit may or may not be easy to obtain and if live aboard status is requested the mooring may not be approved.
Local and state governments are afraid that our harbors and bays will begin to resemble certain harbors in Asia, where entire communities, villages are anchored out. Then comes the big storm, wiping out the community and it’s the government that has to come in and pick up the pieces.
With laws comes enforcement. In tight budget times, enforcing these laws may be difficult. We haven’t heard the last of this issue yet.
Hi Tim,
I agree, there are definitely increasing economic motivations pushing people out onto the water now, and at the same time removing resources from the government agencies tasked with regulating them. I think I wrote somewhere (possibly not on this blog) that I wasn’t tremendously worried about the long-term impact of these efforts, at least in US waters, simply because the DNR budget was getting sliced and diced so much that they simply would not be able to afford an enforcement effort, regardless of how onerous the laws might be.
Unfortunately when you can’t afford blanket enforcement (“fair” enforcement, in other words), what you get is arbitrary enforcement, which usually means the poor without political influence are subject to the whims of the wealthy who have it. So folks in the middle of an enclave like Eagle Harbor bear the brunt of things while those in Mats Mats or Port Hadlock are pretty much left alone (even though Hadlock has been a far greater environmental problem).
I have, however, been heartened by the recent news from Eagle Harbor and hope that it indicates a further trend toward accomodation in these matters.