Jump to content

Welcome to TheMalibuCrew!

As a guest, you are welcome to poke around and view the majority of the content that we have to offer, but in order to post, search, contact members, and get full use out of the website you will need to Register for an Account. It's free and it's easy, so don't hesitate to join the TheMalibuCrew Family today!

Wisconsin New Spotter Law Needing Support


ksdaoski

Recommended Posts

11 hours 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%).

 @Webfooter, @01Sunsetter-WI,  @1984ta, @2h20fn, @ajgear, 

Link to comment

@ajgear@MinaquaWI

When you email, don't be afraid to make it personal.  For my wife and I without kids, it's illegal to enjoy Wisconsin's beautiful lakes together.  Same goes for my retired mom and dad.  They both still enjoy skiing but only get to do it that few times per year the kids are visiting (on weekends, when lakes are busy and skiing sucks).  Statistics are one thing, but let them know how it actually impacts real people.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, onwi said:

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.

I know it hasn't been floated by the authors themselves, but Cindy Duchow in Waukesha and whoever in Walworth are pushing it, right?  And since I live in Waukesha county from my perspective, yes, it is the default and is a useless law to me unless by some change I can get it changed on my lake.   

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, mlange said:

I know it hasn't been floated by the authors themselves, but Cindy Duchow in Waukesha and whoever in Walworth are pushing it, right?  And since I live in Waukesha county from my perspective, yes, it is the default and is a useless law to me unless by some change I can get it changed on my lake.   

The impression I have been given the entire time is that Lake Geneva is worried about Lake Geneva and that Duchow is worried about Waukesha County.  If it were up to them there simply would be no bill.  The bill's authors would never put forward that as a compromise.  As a Waukesha resident I'm also VERY frustrated by the initial amendment.  As I said above I have hope that it can be changed.  But, I'd certainly take the bill with the amendment over no bill at all.  

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...

Any updates on this topic?  I've committed to selling my boat if this law doesn't change.  I was only able to go out 4 times this year due to lack of 3rd and no interest in just sitting on the boat.   Many wasted weekdays that my wife and I could have enjoyed.

I don't want this to lose steam!

 

Link to comment
  • 5 weeks later...

Not sure what this means.

Proposal: SB69 (-0029) View Bill History 
relating to: operating a motorboat towing a person on water skis.

11/6/2017: Withdrawn from committee on Environment and Forestry and referred to committee on Rules pursuant to Assembly Rule 42 (3)(c)

To change or stop email notifications to [email protected], please go to the Notify website.

Link to comment

Committee on rules is where things go to be tied together with the Assembly version.  The Assembly version should be on the floor on Thursday.  They wouldn't put it on the floor if it weren't going to pass.  At least that is how I understand it.

Link to comment

And it passed yesterday. So the Senate and Assembly have passed the bill, on to the governor to make it law.

WISCONSIN ASSEMBLY 
2017 Regular Session 
Speaker Vos

SB 69 
BY MOULTON
REGULATION OF WATER SKIING
CONCURRENCE


AYES - 63   NAYS - 29   NOT VOTING - 4   PAIRED - 2

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/raw/vote/2017/av0200

  • Like 2
Link to comment

The bill was passed with an amendment that provides local control not based on 2 counties, but rather on how many hours law enforcement are on the water.  Previous versions simply removed Waukesha and Walworth Counties from the mirror law.  This version states that if a local unit patrols a inland lake at a minimum of 1,500 hours over a 2 year period then the local government MAY step in and require a spotter on the lake.  This way Lake Geneva can enact their own law instead of forcing that law onto all the other lakes within Walworth County.  

That said, if you are a boater on these big lakes (I know of no Waukesha County lakes that meet the criteria) then you have to wait and see how your local government reacts to their new option.  

In my opinion, as a biased Waukesha County boater, this amendment is far and away better than the previous version.  It doesn't automatically remove a lake and if your local big lake meets the criteria, there are likely many within your county that do not.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, onwi said:

The bill was passed with an amendment that provides local control not based on 2 counties, but rather on how many hours law enforcement are on the water.  Previous versions simply removed Waukesha and Walworth Counties from the mirror law.  This version states that if a local unit patrols a inland lake at a minimum of 1,500 hours over a 2 year period then the local government MAY step in and require a spotter on the lake.  This way Lake Geneva can enact their own law instead of forcing that law onto all the other lakes within Walworth County.  

That said, if you are a boater on these big lakes (I know of no Waukesha County lakes that meet the criteria) then you have to wait and see how your local government reacts to their new option.  

In my opinion, as a biased Waukesha County boater, this amendment is far and away better than the previous version.  It doesn't automatically remove a lake and if your local big lake meets the criteria, there are likely many within your county that do not.

So the law does not require a spotter unless it's:

1) heavily patrolled (1500 hrs in 2 yrs) AND

2) the local govt decides to enact a spotter law.

is this an accurate summary?

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, braindamage said:

So the law does not require a spotter unless it's:

1) heavily patrolled (1500 hrs in 2 yrs) AND

2) the local govt decides to enact a spotter law.

is this an accurate summary?

Sweet, this means that we'll finally be legal on my parents little lake in Amery (not that I've seen a single Sherriff in the 8 years they have owned the place)

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, braindamage said:

So the law does not require a spotter unless it's:

1) heavily patrolled (1500 hrs in 2 yrs) AND

2) the local govt decides to enact a spotter law.

is this an accurate summary?

Correct.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

I hope the data I provided did some good in the process.  Obviously the people really responsible would be the legislators.  For reference, Zach Stollfous  ([email protected]) in Terry Moulton's office was extremely helpful at all points over the past few years in this process.

Link to comment

Looking at the votes at http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/raw/vote/2017/av0200 it looks like it was mostly along party lines.

This couldn't be considered a partisan issue by anyone's imagination.  What a sad statement it is that if one party brings up a proposal that the other party's knee jerk reaction is to disagree.

Link to comment
53 minutes ago, mlange said:

Looking at the votes at http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/raw/vote/2017/av0200 it looks like it was mostly along party lines.

This couldn't be considered a partisan issue by anyone's imagination.  What a sad statement it is that if one party brings up a proposal that the other party's knee jerk reaction is to disagree.

I went to a local meeting with my Assembly rep and told him about the bill etc.  During the meeting someone asked him to speak to the state of politics in the Assembly and the rhetoric we see on a national level.  He spoke at length about how what you see in Washington doesn't play out on the state level.  

Last night I was provided a link to Wisconsineye to watch the proceedings.  I picked it up during the debate prior to our bill.  Oddly enough, my rep was the first to speak while I was watching.  He spent his time calling the other party whiners and making worse insinuations.  The other party then was granted time and they insinuated the other party didn't care about the health.  It all rolled down hill.  Eventually the bill passed, but the rhetoric was mean-spirited and not something I would ask to be used to represent me.  Oddly enough, the bill had sponsors from both parties.  Our bill was offered multiple amendments (age of skier, life jacket, etc.) but was much less of a hot debate.

Edited by onwi
i dont grammer good all time (x2)
Link to comment

Also, I should clarify.  The bill passed the assembly yesterday.  The bill was not exactly the same as the Senate version.  As a result, the Senate has to pass the Assembly version before the Governor can sign.  I see no risk at all being that the Senate already passed a bill without any restriction, so just a point of clarification.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, onwi said:

The bill was passed with an amendment that provides local control not based on 2 counties, but rather on how many hours law enforcement are on the water.  Previous versions simply removed Waukesha and Walworth Counties from the mirror law.  This version states that if a local unit patrols a inland lake at a minimum of 1,500 hours over a 2 year period then the local government MAY step in and require a spotter on the lake.  This way Lake Geneva can enact their own law instead of forcing that law onto all the other lakes within Walworth County.  

That said, if you are a boater on these big lakes (I know of no Waukesha County lakes that meet the criteria) then you have to wait and see how your local government reacts to their new option.  

In my opinion, as a biased Waukesha County boater, this amendment is far and away better than the previous version.  It doesn't automatically remove a lake and if your local big lake meets the criteria, there are likely many within your county that do not.

Yea and thanks!  When does it take effect?

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...