County Leases away sailing venue
- Thread starter shemandr
- Start date
Yes, that appeared in a later post. Still, why should an occasional buoy mean that you can't sail through an area and what does it matter if they happen to be racing? If a race marker were set over some guy's cultivation equipment, that would be another matter, but it doesn't seem to be what Andy describes. It sounds like Andy is raising the issue before it becomes a real conflict, say when the watermen start barricading navigable waters where they have traditionally been racing for years. I don't get the sense that Andy is a yahoo or suggesting that they get into scuffles over these rights, so I guess that I'm sticking up for him (not that he needs my help!) 
@Scott T-BirdDarryl and your other cousin Darryl? jk … sorry couldn't help it!
Not far from da truth cher. I'm from Louisiana so that would be cousin T-Brouss and my other cousin T-Brouss.
whodat?
Edit: Actually, now that I think about it, I have three cousins that could go by T-Brouss!
Last edited:
The actual ICW is federal, and a certain amount of water beside it, but exactly how much is probably dependent on the area. At the Marco Island bridge, there were enough federal waters adjacent to the ICW that I could anchor my 71' shrimper there w/o interference from the local officials. Pissed those snobby ba$tr*rds off, let me tell you!
I think it does involve ICW. At least the area from the exit/entrance to Shinnicock Canal to the buoy south of Robins Island.
Anchorage isn't an issue because there is a 1,000 ft. from shore zone where there are no leases. In the area we sailed through you wouldn't anchor anyway with too much waves and tide. Fishing will be an issue for those that fish.
With regard to sailing through the buoys I'll say it wasn't as cavalier as my post sounded. But that is really the crux of the matter. Are we allowed to use those parts of the bay or not? If not, our sailing area will be eroded until it will be impossible to use. The same for others.
This is from the Administrative Plan:
Program Management Plan 1.4 Lease Program Outcomes:
Successful implementation of the Lease Program will encourage private investment in shellfish aquaculture businesses and the establishment of shellfish farms at secure locations that do not pose conflicts with commercial fishermen and other bay users. This, in turn, will expand the marine-based economy of Suffolk County and create jobs that contribute to the quality of life and sense of place in East End communities.
Anchorage isn't an issue because there is a 1,000 ft. from shore zone where there are no leases. In the area we sailed through you wouldn't anchor anyway with too much waves and tide. Fishing will be an issue for those that fish.
With regard to sailing through the buoys I'll say it wasn't as cavalier as my post sounded. But that is really the crux of the matter. Are we allowed to use those parts of the bay or not? If not, our sailing area will be eroded until it will be impossible to use. The same for others.
This is from the Administrative Plan:
Program Management Plan 1.4 Lease Program Outcomes:
Successful implementation of the Lease Program will encourage private investment in shellfish aquaculture businesses and the establishment of shellfish farms at secure locations that do not pose conflicts with commercial fishermen and other bay users. This, in turn, will expand the marine-based economy of Suffolk County and create jobs that contribute to the quality of life and sense of place in East End communities.
Are the black circles a mooring field?
The obvious question is whether leasing moorings is an action that blocks access to the bottom for watermen. The obvious answer is yes, it does. Notice that virtually the entire area is covered with leased moorings.
I guess I'm not understanding why sailors feel they have the moral high ground on this topic. Normally it does not to come to this, but the mooring fields are huge and appear to have caused the conflict.
The obvious question is whether leasing moorings is an action that blocks access to the bottom for watermen. The obvious answer is yes, it does. Notice that virtually the entire area is covered with leased moorings.
I guess I'm not understanding why sailors feel they have the moral high ground on this topic. Normally it does not to come to this, but the mooring fields are huge and appear to have caused the conflict.
They're not mooring fields. Each circle is a 5 acre plot of bay bottom available to lease for aquaculture. There are restrictions re how fast the number of leases can grow. As of now there are 2.9% of the bottom leased. But as you note virtually the whole bottom could be leased.
Speaking for myself I do not think that sailors have a moral high ground for use of the bay. I know that sailing is a relatively low impact use of the bay that adds a great deal of money to the local economy in docking, stowing, maintenance and economic benefits of sailing events. The money for the leases will go directly to Suffolk County. The local towns get nothing direct.
Speaking for myself I do not think that sailors have a moral high ground for use of the bay. I know that sailing is a relatively low impact use of the bay that adds a great deal of money to the local economy in docking, stowing, maintenance and economic benefits of sailing events. The money for the leases will go directly to Suffolk County. The local towns get nothing direct.
Out of curiosity, I googled "how to farm clams." Here's one site: https://thefishsite.com/articles/cultured-aquaculture-species-northern-quahog
Clam farmers have some legitimate concerns. One stage in the farming process has the clams in mesh bags or covered by mesh to prevent predatory losses from lobsters, crabs, and other hungry creatures. Anchoring committee boats or marks could damage the mesh or bags and cause losses to the farmer. However, just sailing over the beds should not cause a problem.
Areas with active beds should be marked so sailors, fishermen, and casual boaters do not anchor in those waters. however, blocking navigation over the beds seems to be a step too far.
Time to begin lobbying the decision makers. Contacting BoatUS seems to be good idea.
One question to ask is how the plots will be leased, is a random assignment? Are there more desirable lots? Can the areas that clubs use to race be the last to be leased? Perhaps a club could get a lease for the areas where the club races, first boat across the line each week has to harvest clams for the rest of the fleet?
Clam farmers have some legitimate concerns. One stage in the farming process has the clams in mesh bags or covered by mesh to prevent predatory losses from lobsters, crabs, and other hungry creatures. Anchoring committee boats or marks could damage the mesh or bags and cause losses to the farmer. However, just sailing over the beds should not cause a problem.
Areas with active beds should be marked so sailors, fishermen, and casual boaters do not anchor in those waters. however, blocking navigation over the beds seems to be a step too far.
Time to begin lobbying the decision makers. Contacting BoatUS seems to be good idea.
One question to ask is how the plots will be leased, is a random assignment? Are there more desirable lots? Can the areas that clubs use to race be the last to be leased? Perhaps a club could get a lease for the areas where the club races, first boat across the line each week has to harvest clams for the rest of the fleet?
First call should be to an attorney. If the entity generating the leases doesn't have the legal Because authority to lease the bottom, the problem is solved. As posted above, riparian rights case law in your state will need to be examined.
I lived in a condo complex once that was built around a little harbor. Because the developer that built the complex did so on a landfill, then created the harbor, the condo complex owned the bottom of that harbor. That was an extremely rare case.
I lived in a condo complex once that was built around a little harbor. Because the developer that built the complex did so on a landfill, then created the harbor, the condo complex owned the bottom of that harbor. That was an extremely rare case.