Wisconsin New Spotter Law Needing Support

[CedarLakeSkier]

13 hours ago, braindamage said:

I don't think I agree that when traffic goes up towed water sports go down. I think skiing goes down, maybe even wakeboarding goes down, but tubing goes up and so does surfing from what I see out my front windows. Not scientific, just what I see. 

I am not worried about surfers so much except that it's a lot easier for the driver to be distracted by talking to the surfer-something that's unique to surf. And tubers are just unpredictable and sloppy.

i like the idea of no spotters required from sunrise +2 hours and 1 hour before sunset. That's when it's really not busy and the drivers are the serious watersports zealots.

Yeah, maybe you missed my "assumption" - (assuming tubing is not a water sport here).

I wonder if you could require a spotter for tubing only

actually that wouldn't be a bad idea, I've never seen tubers with less than 3 people in the boat... although I almost always see the driver looking backwards so I'm not sure what the spotter is good for anyway

[Chopz]

As a member of the capital cities fire department, on the rescue team, but Live in Hennepin county MN (on lake Minnetonka) I'm in a peculiar situation with this one. I pull the boat down regularly during my work swings and ride everyday I get a chance on mendota usually between 7-9am and it's always calm. When home we sesh from 630-9am dependent on how the bays are and it's always calm as well. Unlike most, we probably won't ride in what a lot of skiers will. If it's not perfect glass we're out. That being said, we always ride 3. On one hand I understand your statistics that your pulling for average incidents per 100,000 people and them being lower in MN versus WI, as a standpoint. However, what those statistics aren't showing is what happens Immediately Following the incident. What was the average patient recovery time? I can tell you from experience that recovering a person in the water, with a boat built specifically for this, and a boat full of highly trained and experienced rescuers can be difficult enough. Let alone off a swim platform by yourself. 

I don't want to write a post that's ridiculously long so I won't go into other feelings on it. But I'll leave it with I could never live with myself if my lady went for a morning sesh with just one other person of our crew, and either one of them became injured while riding and it was exacerbated due to issues with getting them into the boat properly, and on to a higher care. Riding with a 3rd isn't just for protection from other boaters, it's also protection for your own riders/skiers safety.

I guess you could exclude surfers from this tho.... that's just slow, and all you do is bob or float if you fall  

[onwi]

I think the above point is important.  But, it brings me around to the question of not whether or not I should use a spotter, but rather whether or not the State should require me to do so.  I've heard a few people express that they feel more comfortable with the spotter for various reasons.  IMO, that's great.  If the law passes then those who feel so inclined can and will continue using spotters.  The point is that you, and other boaters, are smart enough to make that decision for yourselves.  For example, I'm getting ready to try my first raley.  I'm going to exceed Wisconsin requirements and wear a CGA, maybe with a wetsuit.  I've also decided against doing it last week while at a cabin with the inlaws.  Although there were 3 adults in the boat, I knew they lacked the knowledge that what I want to attempt is more dangerous than my typical run.  The presence of 2 spotters was not enough to change my mind.  

If we as boaters are able to make the decision when to go without, and a large subject group study indicates that the lack of a spotter is not a cause for increased accidents, then the State should not legislate this requirement.  It should be up to us to monitor the conditions and decide for ourselves.  

In the same line of thought, you make a decision to use a physically capable spotter.  You are capable of deciding that this is important to you.  On the other hand, the current law does nothing to ensure that what happens immediately following the incident is better with the spotter than without.  The law only requires a competent person to act as an observer.  There is nothing in the current law that would require this competent person to be able to do more than observe.  In no way are they required to be able to respond to a situation.  By choosing someone who can both observe and respond, you are proving that you can make the choice that you find appropriate yourself, without the State telling you to do so.  It's no different than the fact that, I assume, you require you riders to wear a life jacket.  There is no requirement in Wisconsin to do so, but I bet you are smart enough to decide for yourself.

This is the same argument I would make for restrictions based on locations (Waukesha and Walworth) (Nagawicka, Okauchee, Pewaukee....) or time frame (saturdays, sunrise +2 hours, sunset -1 hour) etc.     

 

 

[Options123]

A new amendment was just updated on the Wisconsin government website. 

Anybody have any information/updates on this?

[gobble]

I'm on Big Cedar and I'll contact my state senator and rep as well.

Does anyone know, if you're surfing and jump off the swim platform (no tow rope) to get started do you need a spotter?

[Shastasurf]

@Chopz raises great points.   I have been raft guide for 23 years and have been part of many rescues, I've even had to rescue, search and rescue, class v waters are a lil tricky, lol.   I think having an observer is a reasonable law.  Who's gonna call 911 when u have to enter the water to rescue an unconscious victim?   If cpr was necessary, the victim would at least have to be on swimplatform or in the boat.  I could manage on my own but it would be best to have help.  It is also exhausting giving cpr and you will want help! That being said, I still feel like most observers would be useless or make the situation worse, especially in event of head neck or spine injuries.   Best bet is to learn to roll a swimmer while supporting their spine, and then calling 911 for trained professional's.  California just made a law that all boater owners are required to take a safety class. I'm all for more boaters being aware and capable.

[ksdaoski]

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2017/related/amendments/ab100/aa1_ab100

 

 

July 21, 2017 - Offered by Representative Jarchow.

1At the locations indicated, amend the bill as follows:

21. Page 2, line 14: after “rear." insert “Subject to s. 30.77 (3) (ab), this 
3subdivision does not apply to the operation of a motorboat on any waters wholly 
4contained within any of the following:”.

52. Page 2, line 14: after that line insert:

6“a. A county having a population as shown in the 2010 federal decennial census 
7of not less than 102,000 and not more than 103,000.

8b. A county having a population as shown in the 2010 federal decennial census 
9of not less than 389,000 and not more than 390,000.".

103. Page 2, line 23: after that line insert:

11“ Section 5m. 30.77 (3) (a) of the statutes is amended to read:

12“30.77 (3) (a) Any Except as provided in par. (ab), any town, village, or city may, 
13in the interest of public health, safety, or welfare, including the public's interest in 
1preserving the state's natural resources, enact ordinances applicable on any waters 
2of this state within its jurisdiction if the ordinances are not contrary to or 
3inconsistent with this chapter and if the ordinances relate to the equipment, use, or 
4operation of boats or to any activity regulated by ss. 30.60 to 30.71.

5Section 6m. 30.77 (3) (ab) of the statutes is created to read:

630.77 (3) (ab) Any town, village, or city located in a county meeting the criteria 
7under s. 30.69 (1) (a) 2. a. or b. may enact an ordinance applicable to waters under 
8its jurisdiction to allow a person to operate a motorboat towing a person on water 
9skis, aquaplane, or similar device without an observer, as provided in s. 30.69 (1) (a) 
102.

11Section 7m. 30.77 (3) (cm) (intro.) of the statutes is amended to read:

1230.77 (3) (cm) (intro.) In enacting ordinances under par. (a), (ab), (am), or (b) 
13for a given body of water, municipalities and public inland lake protection and 
14rehabilitation districts shall take into account factors that include all of the 
15following:

16Section 8m. 30.77 (3) (cr) (intro.) of the statutes is amended to read:

1730.77 (3) (cr) (intro.) The types of ordinances that may be enacted under par. 
18(a), (ab), (am), or (b) include the following:

19Section 9m. 30.77 (3) (cr) 4. of the statutes is created to read:

2030.77 (3) (cr) 4. Authorization of the operation of a motorboat towing a person 
21on water skis, aquaplane, or similar device without an observer, as provided in s. 
2230.69 (1) (a) 2.

23Section 10m. 30.77 (3) (dm) 2g. of the statutes is amended to read:

2430.77 (3) (dm) 2g. If a local entity or a boating organization objects to an 
25ordinance enacted under par. (a) or (ab) that applies to a river or stream, or to an 
1ordinance enacted under par. (b), on the grounds that all or a portion of the ordinance 
2is not necessary for public health, safety, welfare, or the public's interest in 
3preserving the state's natural resources, the procedure under subd. 2r. shall apply.”.

4

[jrvs23]

So, I'm no lawyer, and I skimmed through this because my brain turns off when I start to read things like this. What I took away was they changed it so a local ordinance could be changed to allow a no spotter needed rule but did not actually open it up? 

[onwi]

I've only skimmed the actual text, but I have spoken to the authors before this was submitted.  They told me they intended to remove Waukesha and Walworth Counties from the bill and to allow local government in those counties the ability to allow mirror only use.  I'll check in with the authors to see if anything is different.

[onwi]

From the author's office:

You are correct, the amendment would mean that a spotter would be required in Waukesha and Walworth counties, however municipalities (cities, villages, towns), could pass an ordinance to repeal the spotter rule on their lakes.

If a lake is surrounded by multiple towns, you will need at least 50% of the towns, villages and cities that have jurisdiction over the lake to enact an identical ordinance.  The municipalities that pass the ordinance must have at least 60% of the shoreline footage of the lake within their boundaries in order for the ordinance to become effective.

[UWSkier]

53 minutes ago, onwi said:

From the author's office:

You are correct, the amendment would mean that a spotter would be required in Waukesha and Walworth counties, however municipalities (cities, villages, towns), could pass an ordinance to repeal the spotter rule on their lakes.

If a lake is surrounded by multiple towns, you will need at least 50% of the towns, villages and cities that have jurisdiction over the lake to enact an identical ordinance.  The municipalities that pass the ordinance must have at least 60% of the shoreline footage of the lake within their boundaries in order for the ordinance to become effective.

That probably ensures Winnebago stays spotter-free... which helps me as a Waukesha County skier absolutely zilch...

[onwi]

21 minutes ago, UWSkier said:

That probably ensures Winnebago stays spotter-free... which helps me as a Waukesha County skier absolutely zilch...

Yep, this just allows us to start the conversation on a local level.  A whole lot of work to do to try and convince someone to change their local law.  Honestly, I'm a bit tired of the process (2 years) for it to come to, "start over locally".  But, I'm going to start to try and meet with municipal boards and law enforcement. 

[UWSkier]

6 minutes ago, onwi said:

Yep, this just allows us to start the conversation on a local level.  A whole lot of work to do to try and convince someone to change their local law.  Honestly, I'm a bit tired of the process (2 years) for it to come to, "start over locally".  But, I'm going to start to try and meet with municipal boards and law enforcement. 

I think maybe we look to make concessions on days and hours (not all at once).

Start with specific days.  No spotter required Monday to Thursday or before 10 am on Friday to Sunday or on any holidays.  If that's not enough, then say before 10 am any day.

[onwi]

9 minutes ago, UWSkier said:

I think maybe we look to make concessions on days and hours (not all at once).

Start with specific days.  No spotter required Monday to Thursday or before 10 am on Friday to Sunday or on any holidays.  If that's not enough, then say before 10 am any day.

What lake do you normally use?

[UWSkier]

22 minutes ago, onwi said:

What lake do you normally use?

LaBelle.  Ever since they tightened the fishing regulations, boat traffic before 10 am is light, even on weekends. *cough* I mean, it's CRAZY busy!  Stay away!

[braindamage]

On 7/27/2017 at 1:49 PM, UWSkier said:

LaBelle.  Ever since they tightened the fishing regulations, boat traffic before 10 am is light, even on weekends. *cough* I mean, it's CRAZY busy!  Stay away!

Agreed. LaBelle is crazy busy and that doesn't even take into consideration the countless early am fishing tournaments and sailboat races.

i advise all to avoid LaBelle at ALL COSTS!

[footndale]

@onwi, heard any update on the law?

[onwi]

On 9/4/2017 at 10:55 AM, footndale said:

@onwi, heard any update on the law?

There has been concerned raised regarding the amendment.  Between that, and the large items (budget, transportation, Foxconn) this has taken a bit of a back seat.  Once the budget is passed, it will be easier to make progress.  We are still on a fall timeline for a vote.  My thought process at this point is that I am hopeful that 2018 will be the first season where the mirror is sufficient.  The question that remains is what changes to the amendment will be made to obtain passage.

[Sixball]

I can just see it now with our government people. It will pass with one amendment. you will need to have a driver and a mirror watcher!      I sure hope you get it! 

[mlange]

If the amendment is that by default you need a third and the local municipalities can override that it's essentially a waste of time and useless change.  And that appears to be the current path.

[jrvs23]

49 minutes ago, mlange said:

If the amendment is that by default you need a third and the local municipalities can override that it's essentially a waste of time and useless change.  And that appears to be the current path.

Yup, have to start over at the local level on every lake. Making it real easy to go from lake to lake and know what the rules are

[UWSkier]

I just emailed Duchow, Jarchow (the bill sponsor), and my reps.  Below is what I wrote to my reps.  I urge all fellow cheeseheads to do the same.  @DAI @onwi @BadgerBoater55 @footndale @jk13 @RedOwl@Eagle River Mike@SeanQ@Nordicron@braindamage@efjeld@jrvs23@jaciche@QmanBu@bandStrider@Arick@sidekicknicholas@minnmarker@mlange@Fffrank@MattyICE15 Please tag anyone I may have missed.

Dear xxxx,

I hope you had a great summer in WI!  I had a great summer vacationing with my wife in Minnesota as it's illegal for us to vacation together, just the two of us, here in WI... at least if we wish to enjoy our favorite outdoor activity.

Following up on this legislation, it sounds as though it's being picked apart by do-gooders who feel it necessary to make this a local issue, but one which is backwards.  My understanding is that what's being considered is a law that allows local municipalities to write their own legislation to allow for towed watersports with a mirror only.  That will be incredibly confusing, and it won't change anything.  When is the last time you or any of your colleagues saw local legislation passed that relaxes existing state laws?  It doesn't happen.

Fortunately, there's already a strong precedent in place that dictates how this legislation SHOULD work.  Wisconsin has a dusk to dawn statewide no-wake law.  However, local municipalities are empowered to write more strict legislation where the local populace supports it.  That's how you get many of the (awful) lakes that have no-wake hours in the middle of the afternoon.

Please lend your support to this bill as it was originally written, without the current amendments, and propose an amendment indicating that local municipalities will have the option to write codes to require an observer (even though statistics bear out that having additional people in the boat increases accident rates by over 65%).

[BadgerBoater55]

31 minutes ago, UWSkier said:

I just emailed Duchow, Jarchow (the bill sponsor), and my reps.  Below is what I wrote to my reps.  I urge all fellow cheeseheads to do the same.  @DAI @onwi @BadgerBoater55 @footndale @jk13 @RedOwl@Eagle River Mike@SeanQ@Nordicron@braindamage@efjeld@jrvs23@jaciche@QmanBu@bandStrider@Arick@sidekicknicholas@minnmarker@mlange@Fffrank@MattyICE15 Please tag anyone I may have missed.

Dear xxxx,

I hope you had a great summer in WI!  I had a great summer vacationing with my wife in Minnesota as it's illegal for us to vacation together, just the two of us, here in WI... at least if we wish to enjoy our favorite outdoor activity.

Following up on this legislation, it sounds as though it's being picked apart by do-gooders who feel it necessary to make this a local issue, but one which is backwards.  My understanding is that what's being considered is a law that allows local municipalities to write their own legislation to allow for towed watersports with a mirror only.  That will be incredibly confusing, and it won't change anything.  When is the last time you or any of your colleagues saw local legislation passed that relaxes existing state laws?  It doesn't happen.

Fortunately, there's already a strong precedent in place that dictates how this legislation SHOULD work.  Wisconsin has a dusk to dawn statewide no-wake law.  However, local municipalities are empowered to write more strict legislation where the local populace supports it.  That's how you get many of the (awful) lakes that have no-wake hours in the middle of the afternoon.

Please lend your support to this bill as it was originally written, without the current amendments, and propose an amendment indicating that local municipalities will have the option to write codes to require an observer (even though statistics bear out that having additional people in the boat increases accident rates by over 65%).

Have their been any suggestions to require a certification to do this?  I know... I know... more work, more fees... but I think it could be a great execution of the rule.  I don't know if I would want any old schmo out there without a spotter, heck... even with my limited towing experience, I think I would prefer having a spotter but I understand why more seasoned boaters may not need one.  If they required certification, the local authority can still stop to do "certification" check, and do their normal "got enough life jackets?" check.  Thoughts on this?  Sorry for not being completely informed on the matter.

 

 I will write an email once I hear thoughts on this reply.

[onwi]

5 hours ago, mlange said:

If the amendment is that by default you need a third and the local municipalities can override that it's essentially a waste of time and useless change.  And that appears to be the current path.

That has never been floated by the bill's authors.  To be clear, the amendment that was put out would have allowed mirror usage in all of Wisconsin EXCEPT Walworth and Waukesha Counties.  In those counties a spotter would be required unless local municipalities (at least 50% of the lakeshore municipalities) agreed to allow mirror usage.  There is some concern presently with this amendment.  I don't really know, but as a Waukesha county resident, I do feel hopeful that the concern with the amendment will work in our favor.  Exempting certain counties from a state law sets a dangerous precedent for future legislation that could be entirely unrelated.  

Through conversations I've had with parties involved I do feel as though they are committed to getting this bill passed in a form that will be good for the watersports community.  I doubt they would try 3 times if they weren't.  

[onwi]

1 hour ago, BadgerBoater55 said:

Have their been any suggestions to require a certification to do this?  I know... I know... more work, more fees... but I think it could be a great execution of the rule.  I don't know if I would want any old schmo out there without a spotter, heck... even with my limited towing experience, I think I would prefer having a spotter but I understand why more seasoned boaters may not need one.  If they required certification, the local authority can still stop to do "certification" check, and do their normal "got enough life jackets?" check.  Thoughts on this?  Sorry for not being completely informed on the matter.

 

 I will write an email once I hear thoughts on this reply.

At this point nobody is looking to reinvent the wheel.  Wisconsin is not going down an unknown path with this legislation.  There is no reason to come up with convoluted systems to cater to a small segment of the state's population.  Its a safe practice in 17 other states.