Guess Ill just gripe a while!!

[birddog]

Chalk......please????

[Redbelly]

I say just go out at the Aucilla... ...and git you a tunnel hull luminum boat and run skinny.

[Chalk]

Chalk......please????

What?

I'll sysnopsis the post for those that haven't followed along:

An opinion was posted
No opinion has been changed
An off cuff comment about a boat was made, further debate on what type boat was needed followed.
The place known as the "former bird rack" is going to receive some decoration.
Redfish are easy to catch.
Tom Keels got out of the boat to get a lure.
If someone caught an 8lb trout this post would be considered small.
Mook cited some rules & regulations, but the definition of a channel has not been cited.
People find Jumptrout's bald head sexy

I think that's about it...for those not inclined to read anymore here is a graphical representation of this post.

[BAD BEHAVIOR]

Dang Mook, you missed youre calling man!! From now on, Ill refer all my debating and argumentitive commentary to MOOK!!!! Great post there ,bud. It was good of you to take the time so we would have a more informed ideology about this topic. Im not counsel either but from my interpretation of what you have posted here, it would seem youre danged if you do , danged if you dont!!! Thanks Mook for presenting such an interesting spin on this topic!!

[BAD BEHAVIOR]

Brilliant summation Chalk!!!

[RHTFISH]

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 §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]

I'm ADD! Please explain the above!

[Jumptrout51]

I'll explain it RHTFISH. Basically what he said is that BadBehaviour is right.

[BAD BEHAVIOR]

JT, $20.00 check is in the mail!!

[RHTFISH]

So, like I said before....hammer down, jackplate up
and GOFERIT!

[TroutTrent]

I have a ?. If I was to stop a the mouth or just inside of it and Jt51 or who ever was hammerd down trimed out and jack up at W.O.T coming right by me in what they think is the channel and I make that one LONG cast for that 7lb'er but with all the speed their running and as close as they are they happen to meet my Skitter Walk with the side of their head and I set the hook and tell One Keeper to get the net this is the one, who's to blame I wasn't in the channel or I wasn't were I thought the channel was.
By the way, when I go out at a lower tide I'm Balls to the wall to,,,,,Hope I never get hooked

[Dubble Trubble]

"Cain't we all just get along"



See what you did BB....

[Jumptrout51]

Troutrent,that's exactly where they will be"on the wall" if you ever hook me with a Skitterwalk.

[Just Fish]

My first response to all of this is.... define "narrow"


Last time I was in the river channel at St. Marks fishing about 1/2 way between marker 16, 17, and 18 (draw a triangle and put me in the middle), a fairly large boat came by(Cool Runnings) at wide open throttle and the guy yelled "Hey you are in the channel!!"...

My response....

"Hey, so are you!!!"

In any case, yes I was in the middle of the channel, but there was at least 75 yards of open space on either side of me for boats to go around, the only thing that couldn't possibly avoid me safely would have been the barge. So I would not consider this part of the channel "narrow".

[Redbelly]

I will continue to go out of Aucilla, nobody gripes over there, and I kin run WOT wid my tunnel hull metal boat and not git a-skeered!

[weaver brown]

Funny thing.

The Pensacola Fishing Forum has the same thread going with the same comments except they are talking about Pensacola Pass.