Guess Ill just gripe a while!!

Post by **Jumptrout51** » July 11th, 2007, 4:08 pm

Chalk your face looks a little flushed in your avatar.

Take a deep breath and smile a little.

Life is too short to spend it grounded at Econfina.

bbb · Post by **bbb** » July 11th, 2007, 4:11 pm

As far as anchoring in a channel...... I was told by FWC to re-anchor my boat in the St Marks river as the tide has shifted and my boat was between 2 red markers.

My buddy was fishing with his wife in Apalachee bay near an oyster bar. The Coast Guard cutter was coming out of Carrabelle and sent a wake that put him on the oyster bar and did about $3,000 worth of damage to his 20' action craft. If you are truly responsible for the wake you create, will the Coast Guard pony up the $3,000 in repairs?

Post by **CairoTrout** » July 11th, 2007, 7:20 pm

Bad Behavior's boat is perfect for what he does at Econfina, it catches lots of trout, he doesn't need to go in 6" of water to catch reds either, we proved that at Keaton in March. And I agree with JT51 anybody can catch an old nasty redfish, but not everyone can catch the big trout including myself last Sat.

Post by **Dubble Trubble** » July 11th, 2007, 7:40 pm

Yup, I can remember years ago when I used to trout fish with my dad and grandad, that a redfish was considered a "trash fish"......grandaddy called them "spottails"

Dubble

BIGD · Post by **BIGD** » July 11th, 2007, 7:43 pm

why don't you strap the pvc to the bird rack and paint it RED.

Post by **Jumptrout51** » July 11th, 2007, 7:51 pm

BIGD wrote:why don't you strap the pvc to the bird rack and paint it RED.

Why don't you strap it to CHALK and paint it BYE BYE as you leave the shallow confines of the 'RIVER".

Post by **Chalk** » July 11th, 2007, 8:34 pm

Jumptrout51 wrote:[Why don't you strap it to CHALK and paint it BYE BYE as you leave the shallow confines of the 'RIVER".

Why don't they strap it to your bald head and call it hair

Post by **Barhopr** » July 11th, 2007, 8:53 pm

[quote="CairoTrout"]And I agree with JT51 anybody can catch an old nasty redfish, .......quote]

Yeah, but how many can hunt the redfish down and pick one out of a school and cast to the ONE they want. It's like shooting deer over corn, anybody can do that. Not many folks take the time to hunt the one they want down and shoot him up close with a recurve bow.

Post by **Jumptrout51** » July 11th, 2007, 9:13 pm

BarHopr,you are right up to a point. You can always do what I did last week. That is, see the big sucker coming after your bait and reel real fast to get it away from him. That way you don't lose as much time hunting the more elusive more difficult to land species known as Spotted Seatrout.
A 6 or 7 pound Seatrout is worth more than a 40" redfish on bragging rights anyday. If you were capable of catching a Seatrout over 2 pounds you would understand.

Post by **Jumptrout51** » July 11th, 2007, 9:17 pm

Chalk at one time I had more hair than you do now.
FYI, the ladies LOVE thinning hair. There is hope for you yet.

Post by **CairoTrout** » July 11th, 2007, 9:29 pm

Barhopr you are right. I am just playing with you guys though. Yall don't be hatin.

Post by **Barhopr** » July 11th, 2007, 9:32 pm

Jumptrout51 wrote: A 6 or 7 pound Seatrout is worth more than a 40" redfish on bragging rights anyday. If you were capable of catching a Seatrout over 2 pounds you would understand.

If you were capable of either one of those fish you would understand why catching even a 30" redfish is so much the better.

Post by **Nathan** » July 11th, 2007, 9:50 pm

I may be behind and this may have already been said, didn't read the whole thread, but call the Coast Guard on the bird rack. They are responsible for all markers and hazards to navigation. I don't think there would be a problem with you marking it though. Private channels are maintained by private individuals all the time. Some actually have small pole markers made, others just use PVC or anything of that type. Mark the middle of it with a pole, or you can mark each end of it if it's large.

Post by **BAD BEHAVIOR** » July 11th, 2007, 10:52 pm

I am so proud of this thread!!!! Its my longest ever!!! It really is good to know so many like minded people can have so many different opinions and all of them be right in some form or the other. I guess it all depends on how one looks at the situation. Thanks for the props for Bad Behavior there CT. You know how proud I am of her!! We did wax some reds that day at Keaton , huh!! I have to agree with JT though. Id brag much more about an 8 lb trout than a 40" red. Ive caught bunches of reds over 30 as many of you have, but never an 8 lb trout. If I ever do, ya'll willprobably have to pull my plug in the site b/c I will be showing many pics!!! Thanks again to all the objective views on these topics. And by the way a little JayBird told me there would be markings @ the blown down rack soon!!!

Post by **Mook!** » July 12th, 2007, 1:31 am

Get prouder BAD BEHAVIOR - I'm 'bout to make it a heckuva lot longer with this post alone! Sorry to the ADD people for the length, but I haven't gotten many fish to brag about lately, so I'm down for some random ranting.

OK with all of the fellow fishing addicts on here, I can't believe there are only one or two comments in this whole thread even scratching the surface on my point of view about this whole 'anchored in the channel' nonsense, so here's my four cents...

Just remember that "you" are responsible for your wake and any damage resulting from it. It can be very aggravating when people anchor in the channel, but slow down and pass them safely.

I've read similar and identical quotes in boater safety guides, FAQ's etc, all of which paraphrase the actual rules and laws governing navigation. I think that without the surrounding actual legal texts, the meaning is misconstrued by the incomplete context. I'm not a lawyer, and I am in no way offering legal advice here, but let's all review the actual laws and see if anyone has a change of heart about this.

I'm not familiar with the exact geographic area to which we're referring here, but I see references to 'channel' and 'river mouth', both of which are specifically mentioned in Â§162.65 of the Inland Navigational Rules Act of 1980, 33 USC, which in my unqualified non-lawyer interpretation are applicable in this location as defined in chapter 327 of Florida Statutes (unless this is not an inland waterway as legally defined, which it sounds like it is; if not, similar rules exist in the international navigation rules).

Here are some notable quotes from said US Code:

(b) Waterways—( 1) Fairway. A clear channel shall at all times be left open to permit free and unobstructed navigation by all types of vessels and rafts that normally use the various waterways or sections thereof. The District Commander may specify the width of the fairway required in the various waterways under his charge.

(2) Stoppage in waterway, anchorage or mooring. (i) No vessels or rafts shall anchor or moor in any of the land cuts or other narrow parts of the waterway, except in case of an emergency. Whenever it becomes necessary for a vessel or raft to stop in any such portions of the waterway it shall be securely fastened to one bank and as close to the bank as possible. This shall be done only at such a place and under such conditions as will not obstruct or prevent the passage of other vessels or craft. Stoppages shall be only for such periods as may be necessary.

I'm assuming that if you can't run wide open through the river mouth in a reasonably sized flats boat without possibly damaging these illegally anchored fisherman, then it's narrow, and thus the above would perhaps apply.

I'll bet most people who will argue with me yet offer no supporting facts or evidence have stopped reading by now and skipped to the bottom or next post...back to my rant...just checking to see whether or not it's a waste of my time to write all this stuff out

(vii) No vessel, regardless of size, shall anchor in a dredged channel or narrow portion of a waterway for the purpose of fishing, if navigation is obstructed, thereby.

Again, assuming the location in question is narrow, I would think perhaps the preceding would apply...or if we're talking about an actual marked or dredged waterway outside of the river mouth?

And as to the validity of one being responsible for the damage caused by ones wake, I refer naysayers defending these channel-fishermen back to Chapter 327 of Florida Statutes, and specifically to paragraph 4 of 327.33 FS, which states the following:

(4) Unless otherwise provided in this chapter, the ascertainment of fault in vessel operations and boating accidents shall be determined according to the navigation rules.

"navigation rules" as used in the preceding quote is defined in 327.02 FS:

"Navigation rules" means the International Navigational Rules Act of 1977, 33 U.S.C. appendix following s. 1602, as amended, including the annexes thereto, for vessels on waters outside of established navigational lines of demarcation as specified in 33 C.F.R. part 80 or the Inland Navigational Rules Act of 1980, 33 U.S.C. ss. 2001 et seq., as amended, including the annexes thereto, for vessels on all waters not outside of such lines of demarcation.

Both the inland and international acts referred thereto mention liability in the case of accident or property damage shall be determined on a case by case basis. The Florida Statutes only immediate mention of liability that I see in chapter 327 is 327.32, which states that

Liability for reckless or careless operation of a vessel shall be confined to the operator in immediate charge of the vessel

327.33, partially quoted earlier, is the section on reckless boating, which also includes this little gem:

The failure to operate a vessel in a manner described in this subsection constitutes careless operation. However, vessel wake and shoreline wash resulting from the reasonable and prudent operation of a vessel shall, absent negligence, not constitute damage or endangerment to property.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but in my opinion, if the wake from boat A causes property damage to illegally positioned boat B, and boat A is in a navigation channel or controlled waterway, we would at very least get into something called joint and several liability. That is, but for the actions of A, there would have been no incident, and but for the actions of B, there would have been no incident; however the actual incident was only possible with the joint actions of A and B. As an average non-legally educated citizen, I've seen on courtTV and like, the People's Court and stuff, where cases of joint and several liability tend to either reward no damages to either party, or determine one party more at fault than the other and hold said party fully civilly responsible.

Now, the way I read it, dropping the anchor in the channel, fishing in the channel, or obstructing waterway navigation are all objectively illegal nearly 100% of the time, with the exception of absolute emergency. There is, in my non-legal opinion, objective negligence and thus careless or reckless operation of a vessel in the case of channel-blocking-fishing-guy. In the case of potential wake damage from the vessel underway, consider the following (these are my opinions/interpretations, not quotes from the laws):
a) It is always subjective as to whether or not your 10 foot wake constitutes reckless boating the way the law is written.
b) The Florida Law specifically states that wake damage caused by "reasonable and prudent" operation without "negligence" (which has no objective litmus test) does not constitute damage, endangerment etc.
c) If you are in a navigation channel, where it is illegal to be anchored, stopped etc, or to obstruct navigation, some may think it "reasonable" that you not slow down to little or no wake each time you overtake another vessel, and that you not see an anchor line, and that you assume another vessel in the navigation area to abide by the rules and laws until you get close enough to see otherwise.
d) If there is some probability or earnest articulate belief that slowing down may ground or capsize your boat, causing potential injury to you or your party, or further obstructing the navigation waterway thus endangering other boats attempting to traverse the same navigation area in the immediate future, or if you realize that the wake created during the rise and fall to and from plane is the largest your boat is capable of, some may think it "prudent" to continue operation at full plane as the safest reaction to the reckless vessel operator obstructing your navigation. In this case, I think actually speeding up if possible (to ensure maximum plane and thus minimum wake) may actually aid your 'evasive maneuver' defense

In a nutshell, if you're anchored and fishing in the channel or narrow river mouth, you ARE breaking one or more objective laws, and probably guilty of reckless operation of a vessel the way I read it, but if you simply to fail to slow down and your wake causes damage, you MIGHT be partially or fully liable, and this can only be determined by a court who decides that you were either negligent in doing so, or that your actions were not reasonable and prudent and that you thus violated a subjective law, which may or may not make you civilly liable since that would introduce joint and several liability.

If there are any actual lawyers on this forum, I would love to hear your legal interpretation of all the legal texts (which shall in no way be interpreted by author, respondent, general forum participant, or any other party as legal advice, representation or retainer by to or from any party for any interest, legal or otherwise), or possibly some case precedent references.

If you ask me, speed up when this happens. You'll thin out your wake. If these clowns don't get the idea, USE THE CANNON! [keen pirate smiley]