PDA

View Full Version : Why pick on MC?


sand2snow22
03-10-2008, 01:21 AM
Many more environmental concerns than boats and wakes during the low water season. The minority NIMBY neighbors are making a big stink and not talking about the real issues they have with us, like loud music. They use erosion and property damage instead? We've had a ton of rain this year causing way more erosion and property damage than boat wakes?

Check out the picture:

http://wweek.com/editorial/3416/10443/

uawaterskier
03-10-2008, 01:55 AM
tell them to build a sea wall and quit their *****in

88 PS190
03-10-2008, 04:12 AM
tell them to build a sea wall and quit their *****in

wish I didn't feel for them.

Seawalls DESTROY life, it is very bad for the lake to have them in place as waves rebound and nothing lives in the zone near it, it also forces all the neighbors to install or have their shores erode severely next to it.

I've also had to go swimming for skis/vests/etc that have come off our dock due to rogue wakes.

The wakeboard/wakesurf crowd isn't the only problem, but seriously some of these wakes are getting nuts.

I've been physically knocked off the swimplatform of our boat while standing in my ski, in an area next to a course due to a loaded up nautique with a rider who was not even able to cut out of the wakes with out falling. Now that is just unacceptable in my book. 90% of the time the boarders I see could run with their ballast empty and probably perform better... That is the problem as I see it.

STLer645
03-10-2008, 04:57 AM
This reminds me of the restrictions Lake St Louis has in place.

In addition to restricting access to property owners and having a length limit of (I believe) 21 ft, Lake St Louis won't allow any ballast. I am not a property owner, but sometimes ski there with a guy who is and from what I hear the skiers (largely MC owners thanks to an awesome local dealer) rule that lake and it's association when it comes to policy making. IIRC they tried to keep V-drives of the lake for sometime.

Are these sorts of ballast restrictions common on private lakes? I think wakeboarders are already fighting an uphill battle just because of the image; not unlike how the gray-beards attempted to keep snowboarders off the prestigious mountains. It seems as though opportunists are cloaking their dislike for the wakeboard style (loud music, etc.) with erosion claims that anyone would have a hard time proving conclusively were the product of "synthetic" wakes.

sand2snow22
03-10-2008, 06:34 AM
I feel you 88 ps 190, most of the large wakes on our home lake come from large I/O's running too close to shore, but the largest waves are still caused by the wind. You can't leave anything on the dock when the wind whips up. Plus, the 30 year old dock is really slippery when wet!

TMCNo1
03-10-2008, 07:07 AM
Many more environmental concerns than boats and wakes during the low water season. The minority NIMBY neighbors are making a big stink and not talking about the real issues they have with us, like loud music. They use erosion and property damage instead? We've had a ton of rain this year causing way more erosion and property damage than boat wakes?

Check out the picture:

http://wweek.com/editorial/3416/10443/

"Why pick on MC"?
I'm sorry, but I did not read anything about MasterCraft in that article, yet the picture of a MC IMO was just a example, not a direct slam, it could have been a picture of any boat, but it is an apparent problem sport wide. This debate has been going on since waterskiing began and it isn't getting any better with the advent of the wakeboard boats. Be prepared, your in for a long ride! :twocents:

coz
03-10-2008, 09:05 AM
This reminds me of the restrictions Lake St Louis has in place.

In addition to restricting access to property owners and having a length limit of (I believe) 21 ft, Lake St Louis won't allow any ballast. I am not a property owner, but sometimes ski there with a guy who is and from what I hear the skiers (largely MC owners thanks to an awesome local dealer) rule that lake and it's association when it comes to policy making. IIRC they tried to keep V-drives of the lake for sometime.

Are these sorts of ballast restrictions common on private lakes? I think wakeboarders are already fighting an uphill battle just because of the image; not unlike how the gray-beards attempted to keep snowboarders off the prestigious mountains. It seems as though opportunists are cloaking their dislike for the wakeboard style (loud music, etc.) with erosion claims that anyone would have a hard time proving conclusively were the product of "synthetic" wakes.

Canyon Lake in California has been having these issues for quite a while now. The HOA set restrictions for wakeboaeders that pissed everyone off but it is a small lake and when you get a bunch loaded down wakeboard boats it's no even safe to stand a the dock. Like TMCNo1 said rough seas ahead!:D
BTW synthetic wake is a new one for me.

TMCNo1
03-10-2008, 10:08 AM
Canyon Lake in California has been having these issues for quite a while now. The HOA set restrictions for wakeboaeders that pissed everyone off but it is a small lake and when you get a bunch loaded down wakeboard boats it's no even safe to stand a the dock. Like TMCNo1 said rough seas ahead!:D
BTW synthetic wake is a new one for me.
USA Waterski has been helping fight legislation and restrictions for decades with just slalom and trick wakes causing alledged problems across the country, but now it's going to be a monumental task to overcome this mountain.

wakeX2wake
03-10-2008, 10:28 AM
I like how in the article the home owners assumed the role of biological specialists in saying that the wakes were a "ecological disaster"... i would like to see their data to back up that claim... i seriously doubt they've been out scaning and taking inventory of the fish on that lake... and to be able to track it back to a wake boat is impossible... there are simply too many environmental input to the larger equation... now to the point i agree there could be too many wakeboats in one area i can see that and could see the annoyance... but a wakeboat w/ a decent wake can't be much worse than the 4 and 1/2 days it takes a papaw i/o to get to plane off while taking off... i can see their frustration but the "syntetic run off" of the houses built on the lake could also be contributing to the erosion of the shore... i'm sure the american indians found it quite inconvenient corssing the grand canyon but there wasn't much they could do to stop it either

TMCNo1
03-10-2008, 10:35 AM
I like how in the article the home owners assumed the role of biological specialists in saying that the wakes were a "ecological disaster"... i would like to see their data to back up that claim... i seriously doubt they've been out scaning and taking inventory of the fish on that lake... and to be able to track it back to a wake boat is impossible... there are simply too many environmental input to the larger equation... now to the point i agree there could be too many wakeboats in one area i can see that and could see the annoyance... but a wakeboat w/ a decent wake can't be much worse than the 4 and 1/2 days it takes a papaw i/o to get to plane off while taking off... i can see their frustration but the "syntetic run off" of the houses built on the lake could also be contributing to the erosion of the shore... i'm sure the american indians found it quite inconvenient corssing the grand canyon but there wasn't much they could do to stop it either


I guess all the Native Americans were stoned when all the wakeboard boats started showing up and ruined the Grand Canyon, right?:rolleyes: I'm just saying, what else could do that much damage in such a short time?

wakeX2wake
03-10-2008, 10:43 AM
those peace pipes are no joke man... you ever been to an indian reservation?... the teepee i sayed in didn't have a hole at the top and let's say it was intense... no i was syaing that when moving water is present erosion will happen... if the people on the lake are going to cry about it that much then the wakeboats just need to find a differnet lake to ride on and then let them watch the erosion continue... most of those people just don't want to hear or see them... i just bet those home owners wouldn't be near as quick to say anything about the wakeboats if they owned a dealership or a gas station

coz
03-10-2008, 10:46 AM
I like how in the article the home owners assumed the role of biological specialists in saying that the wakes were a "ecological disaster"... i would like to see their data to back up that claim... i seriously doubt they've been out scaning and taking inventory of the fish on that lake... and to be able to track it back to a wake boat is impossible... there are simply too many environmental input to the larger equation... now to the point i agree there could be too many wakeboats in one area i can see that and could see the annoyance... but a wakeboat w/ a decent wake can't be much worse than the 4 and 1/2 days it takes a papaw i/o to get to plane off while taking off... i can see their frustration but the "syntetic run off" of the houses built on the lake could also be contributing to the erosion of the shore... i'm sure the american indians found it quite inconvenient corssing the grand canyon but there wasn't much they could do to stop it either

I don't think it was the fish so much in Canyon Lake, Ca it was the that the lake would get so choppy that it was bouncing the docks around to where they were breaking free or just breaking, and it was eroding the dock foundations. Like auburn said what about the i/o's? it seems to me there targeting the WB Boats and forgetting that there is probably more i/o's out there helping the problem than wakeboard specific boats.
My last boat was an i/o and we had it wakebaorded out as much as you can an i/o and had a very decent wake when the fat sacs and boat were laoded. So yeah this is gonna be interesting.:D

stuartmcnair
03-10-2008, 11:29 AM
Sorry, but I kind of see their point. Those wakes are rediculous. I lost my previous boat to the bottom of the lake because of a boat making a large wake. My boat was in the boathouse and rode the first wake and fell down into the next one and was swamped.

Of course, the boat that made that wake was just some *** in his Formula cruising around off plane. Slammed every boat around into their dock or on top of the sea wall.

It's not just wakeboarders...

flipper
03-10-2008, 12:44 PM
I don't really have anything against the big wakes, but the people in front of them is a different story. If you're cool about it, not causing problems for others, have at it. It's the ones that throw a huge wake when some little kid is trying to learn to ski, or slamming docks and boats around that I get mad.

ShamrockIV
03-10-2008, 12:46 PM
people hate the best bro!!!!! Haters are everywhere!!!!!

88 PS190
03-10-2008, 12:49 PM
I feel you 88 ps 190, most of the large wakes on our home lake come from large I/O's running too close to shore, but the largest waves are still caused by the wind. You can't leave anything on the dock when the wind whips up. Plus, the 30 year old dock is really slippery when wet!

wind is alright by me, when the wind starts coming up the boat is cranked up out of reach of any waves, the dock is emptied of anything to keep it out of the sun and reach of waves.

Its when its nice and calm out that it really gets to me, our dock is almost a foot and a half above water, and waves will come up over it, that's a very large storm wave, very uncommon to get that high. But the wake boats do it?

Its not even an erosion issue by our house, that doesn't bug me, people with sand have the erosion issue.

wakeX2wake
03-10-2008, 01:18 PM
to me it's like i said before about not playing gangsta rap on the tower speakers w/ kids around... it's about courtesy and thinking about the people around you... i don't fill the balast until i get to where i'm riding and i'm not going to wake surf in front of somebody's dock... the only time i have purposely churned up the water something aweful was when we were in a pretty secluded slew that we always ride in b/c the water is smooth and theres no houses or anything... anyways we're changing out between sets and this guy comes back in there pulling some drunk older guys in a fish/ski outboard combo boat... he sling the guy into a spin and the tuber actually crossed our line amid our efforts to reel it in about 10 yds from the boat itself... needless to say it meant WAR... so... we did the most annoying thing we could do... set the perfect pass on about 9.5 mph and drove in circles and zig zag patterns until it all was timed so beautifully... the guy was in a pretty good sling as he approached the wake then he disappeared behind the mass of the wake and then all you saw was arse and elbows flying through the air... great stuff!!! and then promptly left and we waited on the water to smooth back out a resumed riding in peace

sand2snow22
03-11-2008, 02:08 PM
Well, they did a "wake test" the other day and here is what the guy on the marine board had to say about it. Interesting about ballast, I now understand why MC ( MC lawyers) doesn't have more stock ballast:

Here are the results of the tests on March 6th that I received via email last night. Good reading material.....

To: Wake Working Group
From: Randy Henry, OSMB Policy Analyst
Subject: OSMB Proposal
Date: March 10, 2008
I have finished reviewing the results of the on-water exercise, and am hereby determining
that the attempt at gathering objective data on boat wake failed or is at least very weak.
There are several reasons for this, but I must offer my apologies to all involved,
especially Active Water Sports who provided the test boat. The test was not meant to
escalate the issue, but to help answer some basic questions that are not well answered in
the literature. I still believe the test was worthwhile because of some significant
observations on boat operation.
Here’s what the test did not do: It did not establish data on wake size resulting from a
ballast change to the test boat. The data was too inconsistent, and needs more accurate
measuring equipment. In addition, the location was not ideal because the steep bank
reflected wakes, and the water became choppier throughout the exercise. It also requires
more sophisticated measuring equipment than I used.
So what did we learn? No surprises: Big boats make bigger wakes. Boats that are plowing
make a bigger wake than boats that aren’t plowing. Wakes decline anywhere from an unmeasurable
amount to 50 percent depending on the speed of the boat and the current.
Boats going down stream produce a much longer, but gentler, series of wakes. Boats
going up stream produce fewer, but taller, wakes – usually just a couple of significant
waves.
Despite the lack of consistent data, I do need to say that there was not a large increase in
observable wake size produced by the wakeboat when it was ballasted. This is counterintuitive,
especially when reviewing numerous wakeboard websites that discuss ways to
achieve larger wake height. Most techniques are actually illegal because they involve
overloading the boat. Therefore about all I can say is that, when operated legally and
safely, the wakeboat did not exhibit a wake that was significantly larger than the similarly
sized sheriffs boat. See additional discussion later in this memo.
As you know, we did not test multiple wake boats. The wake boat we chose was very
much the average Oregon wakeboat according to our registration data. Please see the
registration data breakdown at the back end of this report. I broke it down by
manufacturer and I also pulled out Clackamas County specifically to see if it is similar to
the rest of the state. It is illuminating to note that the Portland Metro area, including
Marion County in this count, has 64% of the wake and ski boats 20’ and larger statewide,
and that only about 10% of the boats are over 23’. These numbers could be further
refined, but since we don’t register by model, I can’t get a more accurate breakdown of
wakeboats versus non-wakeboats.
Please note that there are nearly as many 20’ plus aluminum fishing boats as 20’ plus
wake and ski boats. I haven’t had time to do the county breakdown yet.
March 11 Meeting
To begin the meeting on March 11, we will first define the regulatory sideboards. On the
right will be “No Action,” and on the left will be “Motors Prohibited.” Between the bars
we will include issues about law enforcement and education. To get the discussion going,
I’m offering the following options I’ve developed to try to address wake problems.
• Observation: Multiple boats operating erratically create larger combined wakes
than single boats operating in straight lines.
• Implication: This is a difficult enforcement issue. Multiple boats pulling various
devices in restricted spaces create very rough water and generates many
complaints. Reflected waves during the boat test made measurement difficult. In
the test with the three boats doing figure eights, we reached erratic, sloppy wave
heights of over 18 inches – 50% larger than anything produced by the single
boats. How do you enforce large wakes when multiple boats are in operation?
• Response: You can’t if you're trying to measure wake size. You need to re-shape
operation to straight line. Therefore, create "congestion" or pass-through zones.
Separate boats that are towing to 200 or 500’ proximity (we do 200' with PWCs).
Power-on turns of 180 degrees prohibited except to pick up downed skier/boarder.
To turn around, end your run, stop the boat, turn around and start back up.
Obviously people would be allowed to pass each other when going separate
directions.
• Observation: Plowing creates largest wake for all boats.
• Implication: All larger or heavier boats are going to contribute to this problem.
Singling out wakeboard boats would resolve only a piece of the issue.
• Response: Pass-through zone should prohibit operation between 5 and 15 mph
except to get on a plane. (commercial boats exempt) Requires boats to power-up
quickly to minimize wake.
• Observation: The Moomba wakeboat that we tested has a 13 person, or 1800
pounds, total maximum limit. The Coast Guard confirms that the 1200 pounds of
ballast counts against that 1800 pounds. Our test included 4 people totaling 816
pounds, no gear, and ballast tanks fully deployed. We were one body above
capacity. When loaded with wakeboards and coolers, we’re probably down to two
people on board before technically overloaded.
• Implication: In researching wakeboard boats on line, many boats have around a
650 pound difference between factory-installed ballast tanks and the total capacity
limit. That’s three average-sized people and gear, and doesn’t leave room for
coolers. Aftermarket add-ons can take that above the boat’s capacity limit.
• Response: Prohibit use of wake enhancing devices if more than 4 people aboard
since it’s probably illegal operation anyway.
Framework Suggestion:
1. Designate the Willamette River a “Congestion Area.” during boating season.
Implement Memorial Day to Labor Day pass-through zone (most of river) that
prohibit operation between 5 and 15 mph (except to get on plane), 200 or 500 foot
separation between boats towing devices (skiers, tubers, wakeboarders, etc), no
on-plane U-turns except to retrieve fallen skier/tuber/boarder. May apply only to
boats pulling towed devices.
2. Prohibit use of wake devices (ballast tanks and wedges) if more than 4 people on
board.
3. Hire dedicated law enforcement: For 2008 boating season, hire officer to work
Newberg Pool 4 days per week, 6 hours per day (holiday weekends included) with
special emphasis on alcohol, noise, pass-through zones and loading.
4. Hire OSU Wave Lab student (intern?) to install average and peak wake height
recorder over summer.
5. Improve education and outreach efforts regarding wake issues on the Willamette
River.
Registration Data
Statewide Registration
Wake/Ski boats
20' and
up
23' and
up
Baker 3 0
Benton 33 2
Clackamas 698 65
Clatsop 7 0
Columbia 31 4
Coos 22 5
Crook 14 2
Curry 2 63
Deschutes 374 5
Douglas 46 1
Harney 3 3
Hood River 16 15
Jackson 112 1
Jefferson 12 3
Josephine 38 4
Klamath 35 1
Lake 3 0
Lane 191 21
Lincoln 20 2
Linn 76 8
Malheur 16 2
Marion 287 42
Multnomah 473 39
Polk 24 0
Sherman 3 0
Tillamook 4 1
Umatilla 25 3
Union 8 0
Wallowa 4 0
Wasco 7 2
Washington 349 28
Yamhill 85 10
Total 3021 332
Metro Area 1923 188
Percentage 63.65% 56.63%
Aluminum Boats 20’ and larger
Alumaweld: 1191
North River Jet Boats: 1709
Thunder Jet: 494
Custom Weld: 437
NW Jets: 270
Clackamas County Wake/Ski Boat Registration Data
698 Boats registered in Clackamas County larger than 20’ that are water skiing or
wakeboarding boats. The most common names and lengths are listed below. I calculated
average length per brand, plus average overall length, plus the number of boats in the
20<21 foot size, etc.
Name # Ave/Length
Centurion 7 20.36
Malibu 192 21.10
Master Craft 266 21.00
MB Sports 100 21.62
Skiers Choice 74 21.15
Supra 19 20.84
Tige 19 21.50
Avge Lngth 21.13
20<21 367
21<22 172
23<24 94
24<25 16
Statewide Data
Boats by Manufacturer
MB Sports 392
20<21 = 179
21<22 = 26
22<23 = 122
23<24 = 49
24<25 = 5
25<26 = 0
Malibu 1091
20<21 = 409
21<22 = 476
22<23 = 39
23<24 = 138
24<25 = 12
25<26 = 6
Moomba 57
20<21 = 43
21<22 = 7
22<23 = 3
23<24 = 4
24<25 = 0
25<26 = 0
Supra 92
20<21 = 45
21<22 = 39
22<23 = 8
23<24 = 0
24<25 = 0
25<26 = 0
Tige 273
20<21 = 53
21<22 = 132
22<23 = 44
23<24 = 24
24<25 = 15
25<26 = 0

sand2snow22
04-02-2008, 12:22 AM
Oregon State Marine Board is recommending banning ballast, wedges, hydrofoils, etc. on a portion of the Willamette River. This is not good, especially when they admit they have no data proving wakes cause erosion! Also not good for my MC dealer, I think he's top 5 in the nation and he sells a ton of boats to people who use this section of river.

If you don't want to read the entire thing, read their recommendation at the bottom.

Well, looks like the homeowners are getting what they want. If you don't want to read the entire thing, read the end. OSMB is going to recommend banning ballast, wedges, etc.? I have a problem with this, especially when they admit they have no data proving wakes cause erosion.



Please read the following and if at all possible clear your calender and try to attend the OSMB Meeting in Wilsonville on Monday, April 7, beginning at 10 a.m. at the Wilsonville Public Library, 8200 SW Wilsonville Rd.

**NOTE- The last paragraph for the Staff Recommendations. This was never the proposal of anyone from the Wake Group.
If you dont know where RM 31.5 at the upper end of Willow Island to RM 48.5 at the Hwy 219 bridge is.
Well....its the stretch of river from the corner by the Hollywood Video house down by Canby, to the Newberg- St. Paul bridge in Newberg. So basiscally a 12 mile stretch of river.

Item A
Wake Group report for the lower Willamette River
Wake Working Group

01.
At the January 2008 Marine Board meeting, the Board heard discussion about
wakeboarding, boat wakes and related conflicts on the Willamette River. After
considering the discussion, the Board directed staff to convene a working group to
further explore the issue and determine if there was acceptable middle ground to help
resolve complaints.

02.
The working group convened on February 12 in Wilsonville for the first meeting. The
working group included members of the wake boat industry, wake boarders,
waterfront homeowners seeking regulations restricting wakes, an angler, marine
board staff, local dock/boat house contractor, and county law enforcement. The first
meeting focused on outlining the basic issues and disagreements, potential solutions
and general discussion. Representative Jerry Krummel opened the meeting,
welcoming participants and thanking them for their time and interest. He encouraged
the group to work together and reach a solution that meets the needs of homeowners
while continuing to allow the public use of the Willamette River. An on-water
demonstration was set and the date for the final meeting was established. See the
attachment for names of attending individuals and more specific meeting notes.

03.
The on-water demonstration occurred March 6. The event turned out to be more
complex than was expected and provided only limited data regarding boat wakes.
However, the event was useful to staff in comparing boat operation, observing wake
boat functions and capacities, and in seeing the effects of multiple boats operating in
a close area. Please see the attached Wake Working Group memo dated March 10 for
additional info. From this event, staff proposed a strawman framework for the March
12 working group meeting.

04.
At the March 12 meeting, the framework was posted on the wall. The working group
was then asked to bring forward any proposals they had. The wakeboard industry
representatives listed a series of items which were generally modifications of the
framework. Homeowners seeking additional regulation were not unsupportive but
remained adamant that only a wake-device ban would actively address large wakes.

05.
It should be mentioned that a letter-writing campaign to state legislators began about
the time of the final meeting. Pro-wakeboard individuals contacted 16 state legislators
stating their opposition to any restrictive regulations. The letter was based on
discussion points from the first meeting, not the proposals discussed at the final
meeting. Staff has contacted all legislators with a summary of the process to date. In
addition, about 15 waterfront homeowners who were against wakeboarding
restrictions were present at the final working group meeting and were given
opportunity to make comments.

06.
Staff also notes the divisiveness of this issue. People on both sides of the issue have
expressed concern that they are not adequately represented or that the process was
unfair to their interest. Homeowners seeking regulation were specifically dissatisfied
with the on-water test and expressed concern that they were not sufficiently heard at
the final working group meeting. Staff had hoped for a more positive process and a
consensus agreement.

Background

01.
Wakeboard boats have internal ballast tanks that hold anywhere from 900 to 2000
pounds or more of water. Some wakeboard boats also have “wedges” or hydrofoil
devices deployed below the boat to provide additional downthrust. The average size
for wakeboard boats in Oregon is about 21' with some up to 24 and 25 feet long. They
require significant power to move the large mass through the water at such an angle
as to create large wakes.

02.
Because the Marine Board does not register boats by model, we cannot accurately
account for the number of wakeboard boats statewide. However, there are roughly
3000 boats in the state that are 20 feet or longer and are manufactured by companies
who specialize in wakeboats. Nearly 2000 of these boats are in the Portland Metro
area. Only about 332 boats measure 23 feet and larger statewide, with about 188 in
the Portland Metro area.

03.
Through this process it has become apparent that these boats are often operated over
capacity. The Coast Guard has a capacity limit on each boat that also includes the
ballast water. As an example, the boat we tested had a total capacity of 13 people or
1800 pounds, yet the ballast tanks held up to 1000 pounds of water. When fully
ballasted, there is only enough capacity for 3 people and gear. It is a common practice
to load wakeboats with additional people and gear, which, either on purpose or
incidental to the operation, creates a larger wake, especially if people are moved to
the back of the boat to exaggerate the plowing effect.

04.
A relatively new device is the "wedge". This is a hydrofoil that drops below the boat
and creates an additional downthrust equivalent of 1000 or more pounds. According
to the Coast Guard, this device doesn't count against the boat's capacity. A Malibu 23
LSV weighs about 3900 pounds with a 50 gallon fuel tank and seating for 14 people.
It can be purchased with a 450 hp motor, 1350 pounds of ballast and the wedge that
creates another 1000 to 1250 pounds of downthrust. If even moderately loaded with
people and fuel, this boats can weigh upwards of 6,750 pounds without the wedge
deployed, or an equivalent 8,000 if the wedge is deployed. Staff was not able to find
independent data on wake size but websites recommend the rear-mounted wedge be
used to create larger wakes for advanced wakeboarding and wake surfing.

05.
Industry marketing does not typically address legal operating capacity. One
manufacturer includes the following statement in the description of their 23 foot
wakeboard boat. “A 5.7L 325 horsepower multi-port fuel injected is standard, but the
bran new 6.0L 409HP GM Vortec engine might be the favorite option of riders who
fill the ballast bags and load the boat with friends and gear.” Aftermarket ballast bags
are available to increase the ballast on a boat. A search of used boat websites reveal
that some boats are retrofitted to where the ballast alone exceeds capacity. This fact
likely adds to the wake problems experienced by waterfront homeowners. It is likely
that wakeboats have peaked in size and weight – at least as fitted from the factory -
and industry is focused more on creating the best shaped wake at the best distance
from the boat.

06.
For comparison, a comparably sized inboard aluminum fishing boat would be about
3000 pounds, plus the anglers. An average ski boat comes in around 2500 to 3000
pounds and 15 or 16’ fishing boats can be 1000 to 2000 pounds. Since wake size is a
function of displacement and speed, as well as hull design, heavier boats tend to
produce larger wakes.

07.
Comparing boat operation side by side provides only a limited view of reality. The
Moomba wakeboat that was tested by staff produced a wake similar in size to a 22
foot North River jetboat outfitted for law enforcement. The boat was tested at legal
capacity and though measurements were not precise, both boats produced an 8 to 12
inch wake. However, wakeboard boats tend to operate in relatively small areas
making repeated passes back and forth. If the boat is used to pull an inflatable toy, it
is often operated in zig-zags or figure eights to maximize wake. The energy from the
wakes is repeatedly directed toward the shoreline. Fishing boats, cruisers and
commercial vessels tend to go from point to point with more limited operation. While
their wakes may be comparable in basic operation, their operation style likely creates
a much lower impact.

08.
Homeowners seeking wake regulations have characterized this as an erosion issue
above all else. Staff would agree that increasing wake size contributes to erosion, but
there is no local data to determine the extent to which boat operation contributes. The
Marine Board would typically work with other natural resource agencies to devise
boating restrictions to address a boating-related environmental impact. However,
DEQ, ODFW, DSL and other agencies have no monitoring in place on this section of
the river, and there are no studies that provide a baseline from which to measure
erosion. Agencies were invited to participate, with ODFW and DEQ attending the onwater
exercise, but there has been no official input beyond that. ODFW has indicated
that this is not a significant biological concern, but is interested in activities that
promote a healthy aquatic environment, including placement of woody debris to
protect shorelines. Lack of a measurable environmental impact is particularly
awkward for the Oregon State Marine Board because it asks the Board to adopt
regulations addressing an environmental impact for which no state or federal agency
has quantifiable data supporting the claim, and the Board has no staff qualified to
estimate or quantify the claim.
Wake Group Discussion
A solution to eliminate any risk of erosion or dock damage from boats would be a total
ban on all motors on boats. This is unrealistic and was not supported by any persons on
the working group. A no-action alternative was supported by members of the public
attending the final work group meeting.
In general, there was support at the final wake group meeting for the following proposals
to address wake issues:
- Dedicated law enforcement, specially trained to recognize overloading issues,
alcohol abuse and unsafe operation, are needed. Officers are currently spread over
a large area and cannot adequately respond to these problems.
- Creation of a "Congestion Zone." This would designate the Newberg Pool of the
Willamette River a congestion zone and implement a series of regulations to
reduce wake size and conflict. While certain details were not hashed out, it
includes requiring straight-line operation (this reduces wake size), prohibiting
powered u-turns and figure eights, separating boats pulling tubers or boarders by
at least 200 feet (reduces wakes from stacking up), and prohibiting operation
within 100 or 200' of all docks.
- Enhanced outreach and education delivered in partnership with industry and the
Marine Board. This would include additional material in OSMB's mandatory
boater education program, creation of a low-impact boating publication for
distribution by dealers and boat educators, and other outreach activities.
- Use Oregon State University Wave Research Center student to assist in
monitoring actual wake hieght during summer boating season. OSU is interested
in participating.
- Develop a reference library of credible studies and materials to better understand
these issues. It would be housed at OSMB.
- Poll all riparian landowners to determine perceptions of historical use patterns and
problems.
- Noise enforcement. Currently OSMB has no statutory authority to address stereo
noise. It was suggested that this be addressed legislatively. No one argued that
noise shouldn’t be addressed.
- Easing restrictions so homeowners can more easily armor the banks in front of
their properties. State and federal permits are difficult to get. There are quite a few
floating trees that could be affixed to shorelines to reduce wake impacts and
improve wildlife habitat. Industry willing to support. This could require
legislative assistance. Note - this is complicated, too. Studies show that armoring
a shoreline can, in some instances, increase erosion downstream. It needs to be
done carefully.
The following proposals were presented at the meeting by homeowners seeking
restrictions. They were accompanied by signed petitions with approximately 300
signatures (see attached).
- Prohibit use of all wake enhancing devices, including ballast tanks, foils or
loading passengers in a way intended to increase the size of the wake generated.
- Boats 22 feet and larger prohibited from towing devices (skiers, tubers, boarders)
- Beginning June 2010, boats over 3300 pounds prohibited from towing devices.
It should be noted that a group of 15 waterfront homeowners attended the final meeting
specifically arguing against any wakeboat restrictions. These people indicated that they
were not experienceing erosion issues and purchased their property specifically for
boating access. They did not want another group of landowners restricting their right to
access the river.

Proposal

01.
There are significant philosophical issues to consider when devising a response to this
situation. Staff believes it is possible to address the issue in a relatively simple way
through restrictive regulations – such as banning use of all wake enhancing devices. It
is also possible to address the issue through more intense outreach, education,
enforcement and a framework of regulation designed to shape all boat operation to
reduce wake size. The first option is simpler but at a larger cost specifically to
wakeboarders. The second option could only be successful with significant resources
(time and money) from the Marine Board and industry, and still with significant
restriction to the general boating public. Staff will therefore detail three options that
could be considered in various configurations.

Option 1 –
Board direction, no rulemaking
1) Direct Education staff to implement an outreach partnership with industry that
targets owners of wakeboard boats in Multnomah, Clackamas, Columbia,
Washington, Marion and Yamhill counties.
2) Direct Law Enforcement program to fund dedicated marine enforcement officer
limited to operation on the Willamette River Newberg Pool, with special training
in alcohol enforcement, boat overloading, wakeboard boat operation, wake
damage complaints and noise monitoring. Officer will be in place Memorial Day
weekend to Labor Day weekend, 4 days per week including weekends. Specific
emphasis on boat overloading and operation of boat with restricted visibility (bow
high).
3) Partnership with OSU Wave Research Center to get baseline data on wake height
through summer boating period.
- Note: Economic impact of approximately $20,000. Could be defrayed by industry
contribution.

Option 2 -
Rulemaking
1) Initiate rulemaking for “Congestion Zone” designation, from the Hwy 219 Bridge
at RM 48.5 to the upper end of Willow Island at RM 31.5. Congestion zone
applies only to boats pulling towed devices. It requires:
a. Straight-line operation (powered u-turns and figure eights prohibited);
b. 200 foot separation between following boat with towed device and the
person being towed by the lead boat.
c. No towing operation within 100 feet of all docks.
d. Slow-no-wake zone from I-5 Boones Ferry Bridge at RM 38 and the
Railroad Bridge immediately up river.
2) Use in the congestion zone of hydrofoil or other external device designed to
enhance boat wake, whether towing or not, is prohibited.

Option 3 –
in lieu of Option 2
1) Designate Willamette River from the Hwy 219 Bridge at RM 48.5 to the upper
end of Willow Island at RM 31.5 as a congestion zone. Within zone:
a. Prohibit use of all wake enhancing devices, including ballast tanks,
wedges or hydrofoils or other mechanical devices, or un-even loading of
persons or gear to artificially operate bow high.
b. No wake surfing or wake boarding within 100 feet of all docks.
2) Slow-no-wake zone from I-5 Boones Ferry Bridge at RM 38 and the Railroad
Bridge immediately up river.
Analysis

01.
Options 1 and 2 best serve as a package for addressing wake complaints on the
Willamette River. This package addresses wakes created by all boats, not just
wakeboard boats. Additionally, it seeks to limit wake size created by externally
applied wake enhancement devices. To be successful, it will require significant
enforcement investments and extended outreach and education efforts. This will
create a significant workload for staff and, depending on industry contribution,
significant budget impacts given declining revenues. It is not feasible to implement a
statewide fee increase to fund a localized issue like this, and any fee increases would
require legislative approval through the 2009 legislative session, limiting
implementation for the 2008 boating season.

02.
Option 3 is viewed as draconian by industry and wakeboarders who carry significant
investments in their wakeboard boats. However, option 3 doesn’t prevent use of the
boat – just the wake enhancing devices. Boats may continue to be loaded to capacity
with people and gear, allowing for the social event enjoyed by boaters. Law
enforcement is still problematic because certain wakeboats can be de-ballisted
instantly or in under a minute. Additionally, lead plates or other devices can be
employed to create a similar effect without use of ballast tanks and they will not be
readily observable during routine stops.

03.
Enforcement for options 1, 2 and 3 are problematic in all respects given recent court
rulings requiring “probable cause” to stop or inspect a vessel. Officers may not stop a
vessel unless they observe an offense being committed. Wakeboats are stoutly built
and are not easy to visually determine if they are overloaded or not. Special training
for enforcement, including resource materials listing different types of boats and their
capacities, would need to be developed.

04.
Not discussed is the size limitations proposed by waterfront homeowners seeking
wake restrictions. It is the opinion of staff that these larger boats are a small minority
and will be adequately limited by either option 2 or option 3.
Staff Recommendation
Therefore, based primarily on the simplicity of the regulation and the fact that it
minimally restricts operation, staff recommends option 3, a prohibition of wake
enhancing devices, in the stated congestion zone.

Staff recommends that the Board release a draft rule for public comment, as follows:
OAR 250-020-0032
Boat Operations on the Willamette River in Clackamas County
(3) No person shall operate a boat at a speed in excess of a “Slow—No Wake” maximum
5 mph speed on the following waters:
(e) From the I-5 Boones Bridge west approximately 1,700 feet to the Railroad Bridge.

(5) In the Willamette River from RM 31.5 at the upper end of Willow Island to RM 48.5
at the Hwy 219 bridge:
(a) boats are prohibited from using ballast tanks or bags, or mechanical devices including
wedges or hydrofoils, to increase the boat’s wake size.
(b) Loading of passengers at the rear of the boat to increase wake size is also prohibited.
© Wake surfing or wakeboarding within 100 feet of all docks prohibited.

coz
04-02-2008, 08:57 AM
I can say is that, when operated legally and
safely, the wakeboat did not exhibit a wake that was significantly larger than the similarly
sized sheriffs boat.

Must have had some fat a$$ sheriffs, there is no difference between a ballast filled boat and the typical sheriffs boat? That's good to know now I'll save money by not needing more weight on board. :D

chudson
04-02-2008, 10:52 AM
What it's all gonna come down to someday, hey and I said it in 10,000 words or less..........................................

33174

LKNMC
04-02-2008, 11:14 AM
this WMD junk is just total BS

ORX-1
04-02-2008, 12:55 PM
I’m from Portland and ride right through this part of the river almost daily in the summer. The problem is that regardless of the biological affects (which I agree with the majority that these affects will be there regardless); Portland has a strong wakeboarding and boating community and there are only a couple choices when it comes to public waterways. This is one of the more common places to boat and if they were to put any type of restrictions in place it would negatively affect the boating community and push more boaters into the areas that allow larger wakes. I’m not a scientist but if you put all the wakeboard boats in the same place, wouldn’t it have a worse affect on that body of water? It would be far worse if you put them all together, the only good thing would be huge double up’s!

Many more environmental concerns than boats and wakes during the low water season. The minority NIMBY neighbors are making a big stink and not talking about the real issues they have with us, like loud music. They use erosion and property damage instead? We've had a ton of rain this year causing way more erosion and property damage than boat wakes?

Check out the picture:

http://wweek.com/editorial/3416/10443/

sbuell
04-02-2008, 03:20 PM
We live in Lake St Louis mentioned above. The restrictions on boats are numerous. Length limit of 20 ft for most and 24 ft for pontoons, horsepowere limit depending on the boat class, no "wake enhancing devices", no PWCs at all, no wake zones, counter-clockwise direction around the lake.... You can go through and try to pick apart each boat type and use as to how it contributes to the problem with excessive waves and erosion on the lake. No matter what you look at the greatest single contributor to all of this is still just shear number of boats on the lake at any one time. It is not that any one type of boat or style of driving makes things terrible it is just that there are too many boats in one area at a time.

wakeX2wake
04-02-2008, 04:50 PM
that's why i love staying on the river... wakeboats don't hold a candle to the barges in this fairly industrial area

sand2snow22
04-07-2008, 11:32 PM
No ban on weapons of Marine Destruction today, only people who really lost are folks like Toober Tom!

The Board of Directors threw out the OSMB staff recommendation which would have eliminated the use of ballast or any wake enhancing device for over 18 miles on the Willamette River. If we are successful in limiting the regulation to what has been proposed, we will maintain our right to wakeboard on the Willamette. However, please do not confuse this right with privilege; it can be taken away very quickly. We have assured the OSMB, we are prepared to be part of the solution. We will be required to show we can help change the behavior the OSMB has not been successful in doing through their education and outreach programs. We will have to police our own community, or these measures will not work, and we will be back in hearings very soon where we will lose. It is truly up to us. I hope when the time comes, you will help.

The results of the OSMB meeting today:

1) Direct Education staff to implement an outreach partnership with industry that targets owners of wakeboard boats in Multnomah, Clackamas, Columbia, Washington, Marion and Yamhill counties.
2) Direct Law Enforcement program to fund dedicated marine enforcement officer limited to operation on the Willamette River Newberg Pool, with special training in alcohol enforcement, boat overloading, wakeboard boat operation, wake damage complaints and noise monitoring. Officer will be in place Memorial Day weekend to Labor Day weekend, 4 days per week including weekends. Specific emphasis on boat overloading and operation of boat with restricted visibility (bow high).
3) Partnership with OSU Wave Research Center to get baseline data on wake height through summer boating period.
- Note: Economic impact of approximately $20,000. Could be defrayed by industry contribution.

From Proposal 2 in the OSMB Report:

1) Initiate rulemaking for “Congestion Zone” designation, from the Railroad Bridge to RM 31.5. Congestion zone applies only to boats pulling towed devices. It requires:

a. Straight-line operation (powered u-turns and figure eights prohibited);
b. 200 foot separation between following boat with towed device and the
person being towed by the lead boat.
c. No towing operation within 100 feet of all docks.
d. Slow-no-wake zone from I-5 Boones Ferry Bridge at RM 38 and the
Railroad Bridge immediately up river (approximately 1700 feet).

dapicatti
04-08-2008, 01:16 PM
This is really scary. They are proposing legislation based upon not having any evidence? I don't like the implications for boaters, skiers, boarders and tubers everywhere. I would hope the boating associations would get involved with this. This is completely ridiculous.

Gonzo
04-08-2008, 01:36 PM
come back to the light.... 3 event.... come back to the light... leave the wally boards behind....






LOL...kidding. I used to have a 79 Glass master I/O we would trim up high and run at about 20-25 MPH to surf and skurf (remember those) behind. We had more then one hook thrown at us thats for sure.

wakeX2wake
04-08-2008, 01:55 PM
ok another thing... if boat traffic is eroding the shores why kick the people who are using the water for a sport of hobby off?!?!?! why not kick all the people who just ride around and do nothing but get drunk in their boat, erode the shores, and burn gas... simply put...
IF ANYBODY GOES IT SHOULD BE THEM... kills three birds w/ one stone

sand2snow22
04-08-2008, 09:35 PM
ok another thing... if boat traffic is eroding the shores why kick the people who are using the water for a sport of hobby off?!?!?! why not kick all the people who just ride around and do nothing but get drunk in their boat, erode the shores, and burn gas... simply put...
IF ANYBODY GOES IT SHOULD BE THEM... kills three birds w/ one stone

That is how we started out our opening statement! If they had a shred of credibility, they should want a ban on all motorized boats on this stretch of river! Instead a select few homeowners (mostly waterskiers) are trying to dictate who can use this public waterway!

It's def. a slippery slope we know other places around the state are watching this carefully, i.e. we hear some folks on the lower willamette and Prineville Reservior want regulation, too!

The OSMB staff was asked by a board member if they had spoken with the county Sheriff who would have to enforce their recommendation. Their answer; "No...........I mean, we haven't reached out to them, yet."

Also, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and the department of Lands were NOT interested in this subject! ODF&W stating this stretch of river is not important for salmonid rearing, but they are interested in protecting fish habitat.

Lennyp04
04-08-2008, 10:23 PM
ok another thing... if boat traffic is eroding the shores why kick the people who are using the water for a sport of hobby off?!?!?! why not kick all the people who just ride around and do nothing but get drunk in their boat, erode the shores, and burn gas... simply put...
IF ANYBODY GOES IT SHOULD BE THEM... kills three birds w/ one stone


I like the way you think my friend!

gigem75
04-08-2008, 10:32 PM
I live on a private lake and most of the big wakes that hit my pier come from large fat people filling a Cobalt or sum such going 15 miles an hour sightseeing 20 ft off shore. They always come by right when I'm trying to hook up the rear lift hooks. Now that pisses me off. The wake boarders stay out in the middle and really are not a big problem. This is probably the only lake in the country or one of the few you can drive around with a beer and not have to worry about getting busted unless you do something stupid.

JLeuck64
04-08-2008, 10:57 PM
I am surprised, it seems none of those home owners concerned about eroision remember what happened during the floods of 1996???

A couple years worth of heavy rain and snowfall during the winter, followed by an early spring run off wiped out docks all up and down the upper Willamette...

It took a year or so for the vegitation to grow back along the shore line. The Salmon runs reached record highs a couple years later too...

flya750
04-09-2008, 02:45 AM
Many more environmental concerns than boats and wakes during the low water season. The minority NIMBY neighbors are making a big stink and not talking about the real issues they have with us, like loud music. They use erosion and property damage instead? We've had a ton of rain this year causing way more erosion and property damage than boat wakes?

Check out the picture:

http://wweek.com/editorial/3416/10443/


You seriously didn't see any of this coming?

With the size of wakes these new boats generate in certain water/lake scenarios, I think complaints like this are to be expected. Wake board boat owners knowingly install 2000lbs of ballast with the intent of making the biggest wake possible!!!.... And then they have the gall to deny the possible effects of their actions? Please... get real!

sand2snow22
04-09-2008, 03:05 AM
You seriously didn't see any of this coming? With the size of wakes these new boats generate in certain water/lake scenarios, I think complaints like this are to be expected. IMHO

I saw it coming, they've been complaining for at least 7 years.

PDXSurfer
09-02-2008, 05:13 PM
Been doing some research on this topic after finding this public notice (http://www.boatoregon.com/OSMB/WakePage/docs/8-08PublicNoticePoster.pdf) posted at the ramp this weekend. You can find all of the information/proposals by clicking here (http://www.boatoregon.com/OSMB/BoatLaws/ProposedRules.shtml)

Looks like the OSMB has abandoned all sign of reason or fairness and is now going to target wakeboard boats in particular and give law enforcement a blank check as it were to determine if a boat is "unevenly loading persons or gear."

This is the nicest, cleanest stretch of water within close proximity to Portland and allowing this ban to move forward would be a major step back for recreation and the boat-loving culture of the Northwest.

This is a perfect example of the vocal minority pushing and working harder than the true majority of river users in an attempt to get their way. Don't let them win this one just because they took the time to show up to the meetings!

Please contact: June LeTarte (no jokes, please...) OSMB P.O. Box 14145 Salem, OR 97309 or you can email osmb.rulemaking@state.or.us before 9 p.m. September 9th. Even if this isn't your river - if you feel strongly, take the time to drop a line to protect our sport and provide a meaningful discussion of how to coexist and enjoy our shared natural resources.

JimN
09-02-2008, 05:17 PM
Any bets that this was brought about by someone in a position of influence who likes to go out in their canoe or kayak?

PDXSurfer
09-02-2008, 05:31 PM
Possibly... But definitely if they like to launch it from their 8,000 SF home on a couple of acres with 1,000 feet of riverfront. This one is all about the money and those who live along this river have it - a lot of it. It's an affluent bedroom community for the Portland area that wants to live on a quiet, private, unspoiled stretch of river. Ultimately, I do not blame them. Protecting our natural resources in the Pacific Northwest is very important - but it's also important to enjoy them and allow for equal access.

One other point in this discussion - the advocates for changing the laws point to massive destruction, environmental impacts, salmon runs, etc. because it is an easy topic to generate support with. But let's be realistic - for as much as Portland has a huge boating scene - I would guess there are no more than 10 weekends (20 total days) of high congestion on this river. The weather is not consistently good enough and the large numbers they are complaining about are only out on the hottest and busiest weekends. 20 days our of 360 is simply not going to create the kind of effects they claim. Just this weekend I was out two days and had the river virtually to myself for most of the time which lends ZERO credence to their claims of need for a "congestion zone."

Gonzo
09-02-2008, 06:05 PM
wish I didn't feel for them.

Seawalls DESTROY life, it is very bad for the lake to have them in place as waves rebound and nothing lives in the zone near it, it also forces all the neighbors to install or have their shores erode severely next to it.

I've also had to go swimming for skis/vests/etc that have come off our dock due to rogue wakes.

The wakeboard/wakesurf crowd isn't the only problem, but seriously some of these wakes are getting nuts.

I've been physically knocked off the swimplatform of our boat while standing in my ski, in an area next to a course due to a loaded up nautique with a rider who was not even able to cut out of the wakes with out falling. Now that is just unacceptable in my book. 90% of the time the boarders I see could run with their ballast empty and probably perform better... That is the problem as I see it.

2nd all that....one exception. Not that I have ballast, but I dont see emptying it just to pull one guy when everyone else in the boat needs the wake.

mccobmd
09-02-2008, 10:09 PM
Well, there are some advantages to living in Oklahoma. I have at least one pontoon or fishing boat on my lake each time out give me a "Dang, can you make that wave big enough for me to surf?". Their idea of environmentally friendly is to take the beer can's all the way to shore.

sand2snow22
09-03-2008, 01:24 AM
Any bets that this was brought about by someone in a position of influence who likes to go out in their canoe or kayak?

It's actually homeowners on the river who like to waterski!

PDX Surfer-Are you on PDXwake? If so what's your screenname?

thijs
09-03-2008, 03:21 AM
You should pick an MC because there was an MC in Smokey and the Bandit Part 3.

tr6coug
09-03-2008, 04:11 AM
anti-rule comments sent. I don't want to be boarded by the sheriff and have my ballast tanks inspected. I hope the OSMB pulls their heads out.

wakeX2wake
09-03-2008, 11:08 AM
i think that's the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard and i also really hope people in Oregon take note of this the next time they go to the polls... honestly a law against ballast?... hope there's no big boat on that stretch of the river b/c most of those guys can't operate w/o them... someone really should start a petition or something to have that over thrown... to hell w/ their $1k cheap DIY fix that won't last DO IT RIGHT... those wakeboats that he talks about are way more than the fix to his property he so poorly chose

TX.X-30 fan
09-03-2008, 12:11 PM
Just incremental-ism on display.

PDXSurfer
09-03-2008, 02:14 PM
Sand2Snow - I hadn't been on there before but good call - same SN on there now.

I've been emailing and calling people like crazy trying to get them on board to fight this. Even a simple email will go a long way to let them know that discriminating against one group of river users is not only wrong, but it won't solve any of the "problems" they are alleging. I understand that the wakeboard/surf community can be a nuisance, heck I like tubers and jet skiers like I enjoy a nice case of poison oak but it's their river too and with some education and cooperation we can all share it.

Oh, and WakeX2 - it's not a rule against ballast, it's a rule against Wakeboard boats with ballast! There are 101 exceptions in the ruling that allow virtually every other kind of boat free reign to throw wakes however they please.

Unfortunately it's people like this http://www.oregonlive.com/letters/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/12175467118110.xml&coll=7 who take the time to write in and make a stink - so they usually get their way.

So if they legislate us out of the upper Willamette, out of Ross Island, where next? The superfund site downriver? The shoals along Wilsonville?

Don't let them set a precedent, help all river users out, email June LeTarte at osmb.rulemaking@state.or.us

sand2snow22
09-03-2008, 02:41 PM
PDX-What the Willamette Riverkeeper who wrote to Oregonlive.com doesn't understand is why we like it back there! Ross Island is very protected from the wind and the waves settle very quickly. Wakeboarders and skiers love it back there. They can enjoy it 9 months out of the year.

What's ironic is he doesn't mention the fact that Ross Island Sand and Gravel has been raping that land for decades. It's funny that where there used to be an actual island, now is a HUGE 200 ft hole in the ground. And the real problem-Wakeboarders?

thijs
09-03-2008, 05:05 PM
Whoops, Why pick on MC. Not pick an MC.

PDXSurfer
09-09-2008, 02:28 PM
I just wanted to give this topic a quick bump: today is the last day (before 9 pm PDT) that the Oregon State Marine Board will accept comment regarding the proposed restrictions on boats with towed recreational devices on the Willamette River.

So PLEASE, even if this doesn't affect you, even if you don't like big wakes, if you have the time to write a quick email, please do - allowing governments to completely lock out a river user on a public river is wrong and sets a dangerous precedent for members of the boating community.

You can email June LeTarte at osmb.rulemaking@state.or.us if you have the time. Thanks!

sand2snow22
10-18-2008, 01:25 AM
No environmental study and an opposition of 10 to 1 against it and they still banned 'wake enhancing devices'. They make them sound like WMD's! Seems they've had an agenda for awhile. I guess its good the new MC's have ballast that drains out the bottom of the boat, and the tanks are hidden under the floor. How will law enforcement ever know if you're using ballast, especially if your ballast gauges read empty? 8p Funny, but I see this as a sales opportunity for MC in this area, to my knowledge they are the only company besides Calabria with a pretty hidden ballast system!

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/boating_rules_to_reduce_erosio.html

jbr383
10-20-2008, 07:27 PM
The Board sure did go through the motions on this one. One boat test that showed no significant findings, a public meeting where the majority was against any restrictions on the river. Everything they did publicly pointed against the banning of wakeboard boats. However, when they got behind closed doors and voted a ban results. It doesn't matter what they found in the boat test, nor did the open public hearing have any significance. They had their minds made up before they started the process. Time to trade my MC in for an Alumaweld. Seeing how this is Portland, the city on the leading edge of being "green" it's just a matter of time before these bans are on all parts of the rivers. Someday I'll probably even have to trade in the Alumaweld for a kayak.