Two signs, one post situation I think. Kind of like trying to figure out if you can or can not park in a downtown area with all of the signs.It looks like in Maine, the issue was people releaving themselves and the Eelgrass was being impacted. The sign says they moved the "restrooms" 2500ft and stopped anchoring. Was that to keep people from coming ashore to get rest from the moved rooms?
The sign is confusing me.
Out here in the Wild West coast. We have lost our since of wild. No more willy nilly anchoring. You might just stand up on the side of your boat for relief. Port Townsend has a whole program, but it is based on anchoring in the shallows. First 50 to 100 yards along the shoreline, "where the eelgrass grows." Ok to build a pier or two from shore through the eelgrass but a few transient anchored boats is disruptive.
You are absolutely correct. Plymouth harbor was recently dredged. The Blynman Canal was recently dredged. Boston Harbor was recently dredged. Those are only a few bottom dredging projects that I know about where eel grass was removed by the acre. So, in the wisdom of the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, anchoring should be banned to save the eel grass. We, as a nation, foolishly grant certain government agencies unlimited authority over our lives. In my state these agencies are not filled with experts, rather they are filled with political hacks. A small contribution to the Governor, for example, will open the door to your preferred employment area. We could live with that dead wood on the payroll, except some of these hacks take action on subjects they know little about. That is why my favorite anchorage is now gone and will likely never be seen again.No mention of anchoring to cause degradation, at least as a primary source mentioned in that article. It would seem to me that, if indeed the primary sources of degradation listed in your attached article are the primary sources, then the effort to protect eel grass should be better directed to curb those problems.
My question would be “Who’s sign is this, and by what authority is it placed there? No citation of civil code, even if it were legal. Just about anybody can make a sign and stick it on a post in the ground.Another anchorage gone and all the rest will follow.
View attachment 197770
You sound like a spoiled child who just had their toy taken away from them. 5 minutes of Googling tells me that there is indeed an Eelgrass test plot in that area, one of just a few key strategic areas targeted for regrowth. Damage to Eelgrass from anchors is well documented and quantified.I anchored in front of that sign last night in about 15’ (at low). During the night with 120’ rode out I swung about 45 degrees. This morning when I hauled my anchor there was no eel grass or anything else stuck to the line, the chain, or the anchor. Usually there is mud on the anchor. There is no eel grass down there. I doubt anyone can quantify what the impact on anything except the imaginary eel grass will be with this new anchoring restriction.
Good question. There’s nothing on the NOAA charts suggesting it’s a restricted area (other than being a no-discharge zone). A quick scan of the Local Notice to Mariners for this year doesn’t show anything about eelgrass, and I can’t find anything particularly recent from Google. The links form HobieDog are interesting but seem to be about rather dated and don’t actually seem to apply anchoring prohibitions.My question would be “Who’s sign is this, and by what authority is it placed there? No citation of civil code, even if it were legal. Just about anybody can make a sign and stick it on a post in the ground.
We don’t know whose sign it is, government or otherwise. The study you cite has probably ended. Once the funding for a study runs out the study site(s) is(are) often ignored, or at best infrequently monitored. BTW. “Overreach” is everywhere now, from the White House to one’s neighbor on a sidewalk. We should all be concerned.You sound like a spoiled child who just had their toy taken away from them. 5 minutes of Googling tells me that there is indeed an Eelgrass test plot in that area, one of just a few key strategic areas targeted for regrowth. Damage to Eelgrass from anchors is well documented and quantified.
Here's some interesting reading for you and others that are worried this is a case of government overreach:
Great point and one worth exploring.My question would be “Who’s sign is this, and by what authority is it placed there? No citation of civil code, even if it were legal. Just about anybody can make a sign and stick it on a post in the ground.