home

Readers Respond To "The Shire"
September 19, 2013

This year, three — and now four — boats have been homesteading in Oriental’s small anchorage. In Letters to the Editor here since late May, many writers have raised concern that that line of boats deters other vessels from dropping anchor and visiting town. The object of much of the attention has been the fading-red boat Primadonna, whose French crew members have overstayed their visas, but who remain in the harbor for going on 11 months. (See Primadonna letters, here.)

Another of those four boats in the anchorage is “The Shire.” More commonly known as “The Pink Boat” it has been homesteading in the public anchorage since the spring. Its captain, Bradley Flinn, wrote a Letter to the Editor saying he would be leaving soon. That news and other items in his letter, have sparked still more letters from readers.

(Brad Flinn’s letter can be read at the bottom of this chain of letters. Letters are printed in the order of most recent, first.)

To the Editor:

Ott, Christmann, Flinn, and others who take up unethical, if not expressly illegal, anchorage in municipal harbors for overly-long terms are guilty of the deliberate abuse of a natural resource.

Their sewage goes overboard, polluting the harbor, their unyielding presence is an eyesore, and their use of what is normally a transient anchorage in such a manner as to preclude traveling cruisers is tantamount to abusing something nature gave us to utilize carefully and thoughtfully, with minimal impact.

Excuses aside, these individuals certainly have to have little or no conscience, and no consideration for the benevolent folks of Oriental nor for the transient cruisers they displace with their selfish behavior. They are terrible custodians of that which nature has provided for the use of many.

Municipalities and county authorities up and down the coasts of the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico have passed regulations to govern such disrespectful behavior by those who choose to push the limit of the law in selfish long-term anchoring, and in many cases abandonment of their vessels.

The residents of those areas have also been deluged with sob stories and tales of woe, not unlike those of Ott and Christmann. And of course they are subjected to arguments citing the legality of such anchoring, á la Flinn. Which ultimately forces the authorities to pass laws, often draconian, to limit or eliminate the problem. How sad that a few ruin so much for the many.

While I generally eschew new laws governing cruising boaters and anchorages, I fear that Oriental, like similar coastal towns, will be forced to adopt such measures in order to preserve what it has. To fail to do so will only invite continued, and perhaps exacerbated, abuse by thoughtless boaters. Such is the legacy of our society when push comes to shove. It is a sad testament to the abuse of a free and democratic country.

Sincerely,

Jeff Coppes
Mishawaka, IN
9/24/13

As a regular reader of the Letters to the Editor in TownDock, I can’t for the life of me find any contemptible or disrespectful comments alledgedly made by any of the staff at TownDock.net directed toward Mr. Flinn.

On the other hand, Mr. Flinn, in his diatribe to TownDock and the Cruiser’s Forum, does omit that his boat was anchored in Green Creek for possibly a year or so without moving. Green Creek is approx a half a mile from where he is now anchored. The cruisers that he contacted via Cruiser’ Forum may want to question Mr. Flinn as to where his human waste and gray water (that water used in bathing, etc.) were going during that time, and where it’s going now. (There isn’t a pumpout in Green Creek, which is not relevant because the boat never moved.)

Most cruisers I know are very conscientious when it comes to preserving the beauty and health of the waterways they enjoy.

And perhaps somebody can explain to me the relevance of Mr. Flinn’s military service to this issue. That’s about as relevant as me using my 29 years working the “mean streets” of Southern California as an excuse to be inconsiderate and rude.

E.B. Duer
Pamlico County
9/23/13

Editor:

Regarding the recent conversation about the long-term liveaboard boats, currently moored in the Oriental anchorage.

Mr Flinn has taken his, in my opinion, lame, argument to the County Compass, and he posted the exact same letter on Cruiser’s Forum. His argument for his “rights” while besmirching the kindness and motivations of the people of Oriental has now reached tens of thousands of readers, and could not be more off-base.

He paints this as a David-vs-Goliath conflict where greedy land dwellers are trying to wreck havoc with his God-given anchoring rights. Nothing could be further from the truth. It’s about common consideration regarding length of stay, not federal anchoring rights. Oriental LOVES boaters!

All three boats have long overstayed their welcome. Primarily in my mind, by each one of the “permanent” boats making a multi-anchor mooring, this little group of three effectively occupy the entire protected part of the anchorage, whereas skilled cruisers laying to one hook, could otherwise fit in twice as many boats, without fear of fouling their anchors on the multiple lines of the liveaboards’ permanent moorings.

My wife and I used to be able to use the anchorage in Oriental as a weekend destination, or a stop-over point for cruises from New Bern to Ocracoke or Cape Lookout. It has been a very long time since we could do so, due to the “anarchist three”. Other folks we know miss having the option of anchoring in Oriental, too. It used to be such a nice place to “set a spell”, but now these three boats will not give others a chance to use the anchorage, and then, appropriately, move on.

In our case, having a single engine, 21’ wide trimaran, neither the free dock nor ANY of the marinas can accommodate us there, due to our beam and lack of close quarter maneuverability. The anchorage was our only shot.

I couldn’t say how much business Oriental is loosing besides ours, but it is a number of boats from New Bern, and all those hundreds of snow birds as well… (Each wanting to provision, eat out, etc)

Perhaps a sign clearly posted at the dinghy dock, asking for the simple considerations that should be common sense?

Something like,

• Please, be considerate:
• Project no generator noise (wind or otherwise) from your boat, beyond the confines of your boat.
• Lay to a single hook, not multi-anchor moorings.
• Use your holding tanks.
• Keep OB motors DOWN at the dinghy dock.
• And please… Limit your stay here to a few days, or if broken down, two weeks at the most!”

Sincerely,

A liveaboard/cruiser “on a budget”… often anchored out on my self-built plywood boats, for over 15 full-time years out of the last 40, cruising over 20 countries, and living in appropriate anchorages with consideration of the rights of others, not just my own.

Mark Johnson
New Bern
9/21/13

Dear Editor:

Here we are at the beginning of the season of the southbound migration of cruising boats. In the past, many of them would stop by our little anchorage for a visit of a few days. They would visit our shops, restaurants, friends of theirs in the village and come to appreciate what Oriental has to offer.

These cruisers create and transmit their opinions of Oriental via “word of mouth”. Many returned to buy property in Oriental. It helps the Village if their experience is positive. That probably won’t be the case this year.

Our anchorage is not currently viewed as “welcoming” to these cruisers. It is populated with boats that appear in disrepair. A cruiser will assume that boats that look like the four “permanent” residents are uninsured, and need to be avoided. You’d certainly not want to anchor near them. The insurance issue is not trivial.

I read Mr. Flinn’s letter. I commend him on his military service, and respect him for that. However, that does not entitle him to be able to homestead in a harbor. There is no “automatic law” entitling unlimited anchoring.

Many principalities have passed laws limiting and regulating the anchoring of vessels. For example, Oriental could install a mooring field and totally eliminate anchoring altogether. This is the situation in many locations on the ICW. This would also allow the village to require proof of insurance to use a mooring.

He mentions the rights of “live-aboards” in harbors. Since our harbor is not a designated anchorage by NOAA and the USCG, anchor lights are required. That law is not being followed by all four vessels. Anchor lights must meet specific requirements. The laws relative to waste are Federal laws. Vessels that don’t move for months should be questioned about waste handling. I would also like to see the law that guarantees his ability to homestead in any harbor he chooses.

What amazes me is the fact that our elected officials of Oriental have decided to not address the two “hottest” issues affecting their constituents – the management of the harbor and the potential of Walmart coming to town.

They are weak and irresponsible and should be replaced. The only thing they’ve accomplished is to cut a sweetheart land deal to an individual that is now repaying them by selling out to Walmart.

We, the voters, need to make some changes.

Steve Snyder
Oriental Resident and Cruiser
9/17/13

To the Editor:

Please consider this a short history lesson to all concerned about the lack of anchorage in the Oriental breakwater area.

In the late 1990’s, a small group of Oriental residents, among whom I was one, led by Dick Walker and others, fought bravely and unsuccessfully against the state’s giveaway of acres of public trust waters in favor of a private, for profit marina. (Oriental Harbor Marina.)

The reaction then ranged from disinterest, to passionate defense of these waters, to marginalization and criticism of the opponents of the give-away for being “anti- bidness.”

Generations of future public use by boaters for recreation, commercial and anchorage for visitors to Oriental was lost forever due to a public policy decision which came and went with scarcely a whimper.

What a far cry from the present (appropriate) public outpouring of concern over the current anchorage space behind the breakwater.

Granted, some portion of the acreage of public trust waters given away was too shallow for anchorage, but a gracious plenty could have been used for that and other purposes as evidenced by the vessels and structures that occupy the privatized space at present.

Lesson: Public policy decisions matter.. sometimes forever.

I just regret TownDock and all those sincere and passionate supporters of protecting anchorage and public use of our precious waters in Oriental were not here when the decision was made to give some of those waters away.

Jim Baluss
Tarboro/Oriental
9/17/13

Good bye Bradley.

The fact that you served in the Gulf War really has nothing to do with the length of your stay in Oriental Harbor. The right to anchor is part of the right of navigation in US waters, not the right to permanent settlement.

Irresponsible, self-absorbed behavior is the same whether you’re on a boat or on land. There will always be those people; sometimes its necessary for the community to remove them.

Michael Shopenn
Boulder, CO
(Former Oriental resident)
9/17/13

To the Editor,

A comment or two about Mr. Flinn’s letter to TownDock regarding boats in harbor.

The long stay of Ulysses, a few years ago, has been used as precedent for the use of our anchorage as a mooring field. (It seems that the boaters in question do not know the difference.)

The abandonment of Ulysses a few years ago upset many people in town. I can testify that it was a constant topic of conversation. The move of the boat by a friend of the owner, before a hurricane, remedied the problem. The boat sank at a location across the river during that storm. Just the kind of event feared by those concerned.

For eight years I have made a living here in town that is dependent on local sailors, tourist boaters, and ‘snow birds’. This summer I did receive comments from many customers about their fears at anchoring near the ‘permanent’ boats in harbor. After one of those incidents I wrote a letter to TownDock about my embarrassment and concern.

During the time I have been here the four boats, previously mentioned in letters to TownDock, have been the only boats in harbor staying for months on end. Is Mr. Flinn talking about boats staying in harbor for long periods decades ago? I would suggest that anyone who is really interested in this question do some basic research.

The incidents of harbors becoming littered with abandoned boats, boats that were not secured or attended, or boats that do not allow transient boaters a turn at an anchorage, is a problem that many towns have had to deal with.

This is not decades ago when there were far fewer boats and transients trying to anchor and when concerns of safety and pollution were not being addressed. Not too long ago uncleaned engine blocks, radiators, and the like, were used as moorings. No one was safe from a neighboring boat dragging down on them. Is he suggesting that we return to those days?

Finally, I am glad that Mr. Flinn is moving his boat, and that he was asked politely to do so, but I don’t think a responsible person, or a boater who is trying to be fair to other boaters, and especially a veteran, should have to asked to do the right thing.

Taking advantage of a small town’s inability to act and to ask for control over their harbor from the state, (as many east coast towns have done), is not the right thing nor is it fair to transient boaters who are actually sailing. It is legal, but only because the town has been really slow to realize that there is a big problem on the way.

Gil Fontes
Oriental
9/17/13

The writer is co-owner of Hodges Street Sail Repair.

To the good people of town dock.

I just wanted to let you know that soon I will be moving my boat from the harbor. Before anyone here pats themselves on the back, I would just like to make a few quick points. First off I am a disabled war veteran who served this country in the 91 gulf war, on the USS Nimitz CVN-68 and even in countries filled will people who hate Americans I have never been treated with such malice, defamation, slander, false accusations and contempt as I have been by the fine people who run this website. You have printed without the journalistic integrity to examine and research all sides of the issues, that is, the rights of live- aboards in harbors. I don’t want you to falsely believe that any of these tactics are the reason I am moving my boat. If anything, it has made me want to stay where I lawfully am even longer. I have that right! What has compelled me to decide to move is for the first time in 4 months someone has actually asked me politely if I would mind making more room in the harbor for the snowbird fall season.

The idea that long term boats in the harbor is something new is laughable. Long term boats in the harbor is nothing new it goes back as far as the founding of Oriental. Those who say differently don’t know much about the history of the harbor in Oriental. They also don’t know the maritime definition of a derelict, or abandoned boat. The first time I stayed in the harbor 3 years ago I took the spot that a boat that had been there almost 2 years. So all this “Traditionally, Oriental’s anchorage has been a place where visiting boats drop the hook for a day or two, maybe even a few weeks or months.” talk is just bunk. Back then I vowed that I would never return to the harbor because in the spring and summer season it is like the wild west in there. I tore my rotator-cuff that makes rowing long distances hard, so I moved boat from greens creek back into the harbor.

Way before the issue of 3 boats in the harbor, all tourism in Oriental has been on a steep decline for over 4 years. The escaping tourists used to come by automobile as well as boats. As a matter of fact most drove their cars here. So can we come up with some other reason for this decline beside scapegoating the 3 boats in the harbor.

I love this town as much as everyone else who has the luck to live here.

Bradley Flinn
SV The Shire
Oriental, NC

Publisher’s Note:

The initial article regarding anchorage stays published on TownDock was a guest column, submitted by a visiting cruising sailor in June of this year:

• Guest Columnist – Limit Stays In Anchorage

Readers wrote in on this subject:

• Letters – Overstaying Welcome In Anchorage

And more letters:

• Letters – More On Oriental’s Anchorage

In July TownDock.net sent a reporter to visit sailing vessel Primadonna. Here is the story:

• Shipping News – Primadonna

Primadonna’s story generated much reader input:

• Letters – Primadonna’s stay and story

Mr. Flinn refers to “malice, defamation, slander, false accusations and contempt” from TownDock.net, however provides no examples of such.

Readers can read the articles and decide for themselves.

To Mr. Flinn’s point that other boats have stayed for a long time, it is true. TownDock reported that back in June. For example, the steel sailboat Ulysses stayed for more than a year and a half, remaining in the anchorage for months after its owner had left the area. At the time, that boat drew comments for using the harbor as a storage space. There have indeed occasionally been times when a boat would stay for a long stint.

This year was different. It wasn’t one boat. It was three. And recently, a fourth.

This subject appears one that will cause continued discussion.

TownDock.net welcomes correspondence on this subject and others. Please limit your letter to 500 words. Send your letter to letters@towndock.net. No anonymous letters will be accepted. Well-made, civilly-spoken points welcomed. Please include the city & state where you live. If you cc TownDock letters you send to government officials, they may be included in the Letters column. (Such correspondence to government – town, county, state federal – is part of the public record.)