I must express once again that I am not an attorney and that I am neither offering anything that shall be interpreted in any case as legal advice, solicited or otherwise, nor assuming any liability for the actions of any viewer, member or any other party under any circumstance
My first response to all of this is.... define "narrow"
My first response to that is..."The definition of narrow is irrelevant" if you're talking about anchoring in a channel, because the previously quoted US Code says "...channel OR narrow portion..." and not "narrow portion OF channel..."
side note: please do not take that or any of my ranting on this topic as any sort of personal attack on the member I just quoted or any other members with whom I disagree; I simply offer rebuttal to the idea that anchored-in-the-channel-fishers have any sort of right of way or protection from liability, and I do so with no malcontent, and encourage same to my posts. I also am hoping to stress to everyone that those little boater guides claiming that you are responsible for your own wake are not the law in any way shape or form (In fact if you read the fine print therein, you will notice that, in many cases, they contain an integrated legal disclaimer right in the publication stating such, and warning that you are still responsible for following the
actual law regardless of what the book or pamphlet says).
Further, in my personal opinion, it is extremely unethical, and maybe a little arrogant, to sit anchored in the middle of a navigation channel for recreational purposes and expect that everyone else on the water is responsible for adjusting his or her course and speed to accommodate you, especially in the Gulf around North Florida where we are blessed with such a vast expanse of similar areas in which you could anchor that AREN'T in channels disrupting other boaters. I can't imagine that there is any sort of logical argument to that, and if you have one, please post it. Please don't argue that you have some sort of right or entitlement to anchor and fish in the channel while everyone else works to avoid you; even if we assume that you do, please remember that having the right to do something doesn't mean that it's not rude and or unethical. For the record, I think it's just as rude for a large boat to go flying by a small boat that's NOT anchored in the middle of the channel, so I'm totally with you on responsible wake ethic, but I think that when you choose to anchor in an area used for or designated as a navigation waterway, you are assuming risk, and with it partial or complete liability for any damages or injuries caused thereby, particularly to your own property and self. I'm opposed to blocking areas of frequent navigation, which regardless of legal liabilities and rights, decreases the overall safety of the boating public just by increasing the
potential for injury or property damage, particularly when there is such obvious confusion over what the legal responsibilities and required actions of each party are, and when you could so easily just fish elsewhere.
...Ok back to supporting my interpretation of fishing-in-channel nonsense and why the definitions of "narrow" or even "dredged channel" or "waterway" are irrelevant in the determination of liability if ole Cool Runnings somehow capsized a boat with his wake. None of those words are defined in statute, but the US Court of Appeals has defined obstruction to navigation frequently and encompassing a much broader range of locations and situations than even I would have thought. There is a wide load of case law dealing with this type of thing. I'm not going to cite a bunch of specific cases and definitions, but I'm going to offer one particular case that references many many others and specifically their determinations and guidelines therefore, of the definition of "obstructing navigation" and assignment of liability.
There is also another federal statutory code,
33USC409, that deals with illegal obstruction of navigation a little more broadly than the one I cited in my post last night, and it begins with:
It shall not be lawful to tie up or anchor vessels or other craft in
navigable channels in such a manner as to prevent or obstruct the
passage of other vessels or craft; or to sink, or permit or cause to be
sunk, vessels or other craft in navigable channels;
This is the statute most frequently applied in case law/precedent I was able to find regarding obstruction, because, unlike the section I posted last night, which applies only to our specific geographic region, this federal statutory rule applies to all US waterways (regardless of whether or not it's referenced in the Florida Statutes like the other one, since federal laws apply in all states).
I encourage everyone with an opinion on this argument to read the full finding, and especially the footnotes, of the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in the case of
Superior Construction vs. Brock
This April 14th, 2006 finding affirmed and upheld the decision of a Florida district court who awarded $19,214,689.13 to the operator, passengers, and spouse of an injured passenger for resulting damages after their vessel, operated by Brock, whose blood alcohol level tested over the legal limit following the accident, allided with an anchored barge found to be illegally obstructing navigation under 33USC409 in a waterway that was neither dredged, nor officially marked, nor legally referenced as "narrow" in the findings of either court.
Yes that said 19
million dollars and change...and yes, you read that correctly...Charles Brock, whose blood alcohol level tested 0.112 three and a half hours after the allision, was awarded $770,841.83 in damages by the district court, who determined that the illegal obstruction of navigation by the tug and barge into which he crashed his boat while intoxicated, was the proximate cause of the allision, and that his intoxication was not contributory to the cause, thus rendering Superior Construction 100% liable for all damages.
If you read the case finding but not the footnotes, you might argue that the barge was found to be in violation of 2 or 3 other statutory requirements (inadequate lighting of the vessel, safety equipment in disrepair, etc), and that it wasn't obstruction alone that swayed the liability in this case, but the appeals court judges expressly comment on this in footnotes 11 and 12. In 11, they say that because the circuit court was correct in their determination that the barge was in violation of 33 U.S.C. § 409, that the appeals court did not even consider any of the other findings of violation in their decision to affirm or remand the district court's finding. In footnote 12, they explain the reasoning behind that, which is basically that the obstruction violation alone was enough for the circuit court to correctly apply the Pennsylvania Rule and thus find Superior Construction to be 100% liable for damages relating to the allision, regardless of whether or not they were guilty of any of the other statutory violations cited by the lower court.
My favorite thing about this case in relation to the current thread is the appeals court judges' footnote 13:
Superior mischaracterizes our prior holdings when it claims that “[c]ase law interpreting section 409 has uniformly held that where there is room available for safe passage of
vessels, there is no violation of 33 U.S.C. § 409." Our previous cases establish that district
courts should not limit their § 409 analyses to the question of whether a stationary vessel’s
location permitted safe passage of moving vessels; rather, district courts must determine whether
a vessel obstructed navigation “by reference to all the relevant facts and circumstances." Orange
Beach, 680 F.2d at 1380; see also Sunderland Marine, 338 F.3d at 1279. In Orange Beach, for
example, “[v]essels rounding the bends from either direction could pass" the defendants’ moored vessels. 680 F.2d at 1378. Such availability of safe passage did not enable the defendants to
evade § 409’s reach, however, because, as we explained above, the other relevant facts and
circumstances nevertheless indicated the moored vessels unlawfully obstructed navigation. Id. at
1380. Similarly, the fact Appellees’ boat theoretically could have navigated around Superior’s
Barge did not automatically preclude the district court from finding Superior violated § 409.
There you have it... a federal court decision going out of its way to point out that 'leaving room to go around' doesn't mean that you are not obstructing navigation, and additionally citing yet another federal court decision finding same. This decision is not only recent, but intermingles Florida and Federal law as would apply in Econ, St Marks or anywhere we all fish, and it affirms the application of liability for obstruction to the tune of over 19 million dollars without regard to definition of the words channel, dredged, or narrow. In fact, one basis of Superior's appeal in this case is that there is no clear-cut definition of obstruction, to which the court basically said 'so what?'
OK channel-fishers, channel-fisher-supporters and BB naysayers, that's all the typing I have in me for now, but I've given you federal and state laws and now specific case references from one of the highest courts in the country in support of my interpretation of it all. If I'm still wrong, please offer evidence to the contrary rather than simply trying to poke holes in mine. Note that my linkage is direct to official United States government web sites; please do not retort with 'evidence' from Wikipedia
And just mark it 
