So, I've deduced from various readings that a boat lying to a single hook is anchored; whereas, one lying to two hooks is (technically speaking) moored--such as in the well-known Bahamian Moor. I bring this up again b/c of frequently encountering skippers attempting to moor (i.e., to anchor bow and stern) their boats inside the swinging radius of other boats (e.g., mine) already anchored on single hook. This, despite a law that Stu Jackson found and shared w/ us in a thread from last year.
Decision No. 124-5861 (1956) in U.S. Admiralty case law states: “A vessel shall be found at fault if it . . . anchors so close to another vessel as to foul her when swinging . . . (and/or) fails to shift anchorage when dragging dangerously close to another anchored vessel. Furthermore, the vessel that anchored first SHALL warn the one who anchored last that the berth chosen will foul the former’s berth."
Three times over this past week I had to advise skippers of boats attempting to moor too close to me at Santa Cruz Island. One moved a little further away, one gave me the: "I've been anchoring here for over 40 years...", etc., including the bit about having a hundred ton Captain's license but he eventually departed when the skipper of a big power boat also jumped on him, and called him out on the VHF; and another who ignored me completely. I chatted briefly with the skipper and wife who actually moved up some, but who still moored in my radius, when I went over in the dink to fulfill: Furthermore, the vessel that anchored first SHALL warn the one who anchored last that the berth chosen will foul the former’s berth,
They were visiting from out of area. It was their first time in that anchorage, and that friends had told them that boats must use bow & stern anchoring there where we were. I assumed this POV dervied from Fagan's book which describes anchoring close to the rocks for shelter and using a stern anchor to keep from swinging into them. Fine--that's fine. You get there first and wish to "take shelter" that's sensible advice. But if you're not there first, that very "berth" may already be "occupied" by a boat leaving room there to swing toward the rocks w/o hitting 'em instead of mooring there. It's astonishing, really, to hear the perspective of the "foulers." Namely, a boat on a single hook is hogging the anchorage, whereas a moored one somehow is being socially conscious. I pointed out that if he had anchored instead of moored, he would have as much of the anchorage in which to swing as I (i.e., we swing together), but by mooring he forces all boats coming later to stay clear of him by 150 ft or more unless they also moor. Since the first arriving boat has priority and chooses to anchor, the guys coming later and mooring are the "hogs." It loses something in the translation! Anyway, I told them that they had been duly notified of the potential to foul my berth by mooring in that spot. Eventually, they picked up and left as well, not even saying "goodbye!"
http://forums.sailboatowners.com/index.php?threads/is-there-such-a-thing-as-too-much-scope.174333/&highlight=Too much scope
Decision No. 124-5861 (1956) in U.S. Admiralty case law states: “A vessel shall be found at fault if it . . . anchors so close to another vessel as to foul her when swinging . . . (and/or) fails to shift anchorage when dragging dangerously close to another anchored vessel. Furthermore, the vessel that anchored first SHALL warn the one who anchored last that the berth chosen will foul the former’s berth."
Three times over this past week I had to advise skippers of boats attempting to moor too close to me at Santa Cruz Island. One moved a little further away, one gave me the: "I've been anchoring here for over 40 years...", etc., including the bit about having a hundred ton Captain's license but he eventually departed when the skipper of a big power boat also jumped on him, and called him out on the VHF; and another who ignored me completely. I chatted briefly with the skipper and wife who actually moved up some, but who still moored in my radius, when I went over in the dink to fulfill: Furthermore, the vessel that anchored first SHALL warn the one who anchored last that the berth chosen will foul the former’s berth,
They were visiting from out of area. It was their first time in that anchorage, and that friends had told them that boats must use bow & stern anchoring there where we were. I assumed this POV dervied from Fagan's book which describes anchoring close to the rocks for shelter and using a stern anchor to keep from swinging into them. Fine--that's fine. You get there first and wish to "take shelter" that's sensible advice. But if you're not there first, that very "berth" may already be "occupied" by a boat leaving room there to swing toward the rocks w/o hitting 'em instead of mooring there. It's astonishing, really, to hear the perspective of the "foulers." Namely, a boat on a single hook is hogging the anchorage, whereas a moored one somehow is being socially conscious. I pointed out that if he had anchored instead of moored, he would have as much of the anchorage in which to swing as I (i.e., we swing together), but by mooring he forces all boats coming later to stay clear of him by 150 ft or more unless they also moor. Since the first arriving boat has priority and chooses to anchor, the guys coming later and mooring are the "hogs." It loses something in the translation! Anyway, I told them that they had been duly notified of the potential to foul my berth by mooring in that spot. Eventually, they picked up and left as well, not even saying "goodbye!"
http://forums.sailboatowners.com/index.php?threads/is-there-such-a-thing-as-too-much-scope.174333/&highlight=Too much scope
Last edited: