Oregon boaters

[WakeGirl]

With the improvement of the back ramp, Prineville is going to be busy this year. I'm not surprised to hear about that, what's surprising is that it took so long. That marina's in a bad spot.

[GeorgeWBush]

- Dedicated law enforcement, specially trained to recognize overloading

issues, alcohol abuse and unsafe operation, are needed. Officers are

currently spread over a large area.

As opposed to what? Abe, don't take this the wrong way because I know that you know your stuff, it's not directed at you. But many of the people that I see in sheriff's unis on the waterways don't know their stern from their bow, let alone port from starboard. I've had too many experiences over the past couple of years with some of these guys that are supposed to be upholding & enforcing the law, yet they neither know the law or how to operate a boat. That's disturbing to me. We actually had to chase down a sheriff last year because he nearly ran down my son due to following too close. You shouldn't have to explain this kind of thing to them, yet it has to be done on a frighteningly consistent basis. So rather than make a whole bunch of new laws that they have to learn, how about making sure that they know the current ones as well as proper operation of a vessel? That would go a long way IMO.

Sorry for the rant, I guess it sort of turned into that. Again, that wasn't directed at you Abe.

None taken:) The Marine Board is improving every year... I can't say anything really other than when a cop makes a mistake call or write a letter to his office/department. There is a high turn over in Marine enforcement, and its largely seasonal, but we do train a lot (Thursday we are going to practice rolling a zodiac:) and our state is actually ahead for its boat per capita ratio and many other states follow our lead - like with the boater ed cards. And with the whole capacity thing it would not be a new law, it would just be enforced. The truth is boat manufactures are misleading people when it comes to how much ballast a boat could have. (although a good lawyer could get you off just about any over loading charge with out the presence of an "especially hazardous condition" if you were willing to pay).

I know what you mean though, we have all had our "bad" run ins with law enforcement.

[GeorgeWBush]

If there's a way that I can help, I'd like to. The timeframe for your conference is tough though.

Bucrew could always offer to be a sponsor... but I don't know how the members from the other 49 (and Canada) would feel about that:) lol

Sponsor of what? You lost me there.

The marine board has sponsors such as Mustang Survival Gear, and Zodiac boats, Seaswirl used to be one...

[skurfer]

We've been following this pretty closely on www.pdxwake.com There is a 6 page thread going if anyone is interested. I see the real problem homeowners have is with large wakes, dock damage, and LOUD stereos. But, they cry erosion? Huh? Why don't we address the real issues. It's hard for me to believe that wakes in the dry season are causing that much erosion? Right now the Willamette is high and running Chit brown. There are many other BIG contributors to erosion like logging, farming, development, i.e. building houses on a river, etc. But, let's not worry about those. Let's pick on wake boats? Give me a break. Show me some science behind it. Show me how my boat wake is causing erosion and property damage!

Edited March 19, 2008 by skurfer

[WakeGirl]

- Dedicated law enforcement, specially trained to recognize overloading

issues, alcohol abuse and unsafe operation, are needed. Officers are

currently spread over a large area.

As opposed to what? Abe, don't take this the wrong way because I know that you know your stuff, it's not directed at you. But many of the people that I see in sheriff's unis on the waterways don't know their stern from their bow, let alone port from starboard. I've had too many experiences over the past couple of years with some of these guys that are supposed to be upholding & enforcing the law, yet they neither know the law or how to operate a boat. That's disturbing to me. We actually had to chase down a sheriff last year because he nearly ran down my son due to following too close. You shouldn't have to explain this kind of thing to them, yet it has to be done on a frighteningly consistent basis. So rather than make a whole bunch of new laws that they have to learn, how about making sure that they know the current ones as well as proper operation of a vessel? That would go a long way IMO.

Sorry for the rant, I guess it sort of turned into that. Again, that wasn't directed at you Abe.

None taken:) The Marine Board is improving every year... I can't say anything really other than when a cop makes a mistake call or write a letter to his office/department. There is a high turn over in Marine enforcement, and its largely seasonal, but we do train a lot (Thursday we are going to practice rolling a zodiac:) and our state is actually ahead for its boat per capita ratio and many other states follow our lead - like with the boater ed cards. And with the whole capacity thing it would not be a new law, it would just be enforced. The truth is boat manufactures are misleading people when it comes to how much ballast a boat could have. (although a good lawyer could get you off just about any over loading charge with out the presence of an "especially hazardous condition" if you were willing to pay).

I know what you mean though, we have all had our "bad" run ins with law enforcement.

I've just had too many in recent years to shrug it off. But it sounds like you guys are aware of the problem, so that's something.

If there's a way that I can help, I'd like to. The timeframe for your conference is tough though.

Bucrew could always offer to be a sponsor... but I don't know how the members from the other 49 (and Canada) would feel about that:) lol

Sponsor of what? You lost me there.

The marine board has sponsors such as Mustang Survival Gear, and Zodiac boats, Seaswirl used to be one...

Interesting. How would I get more info on that?

[obski]

I have just been talking to the Director. He said that he knows that is the 1% of wake boat operators putting everyone else's privileges at risk. He said (direct quote) that "peer pressure is the best solution for the problem, and the best way to avoid legislative changes." AKA: responsible, family wake boarders need to speak out when they see someone acting like an a**. It is actually property damage that is the biggest issue (and to a lesser extent competing uses). He also said that right now enforcing the capacity restrictions on a boat is just another tool to use against "problem causers". But that letter says it all really...

There is a push to limit wake on part of Prineville Res. and it is coming from the Marina. I doubt it will happen this summer...

Because of the idiots that come out on the water during peak times, I avoid those times as much as possible. I love going out now in early season and late in the season when there are few others braving the conditions and the ones that do are generally experienced and courteous. During the summer season I usually hit the water either early in the morning or during the day on a weekday. It can get crazy out on the Willamette during a summer weekend day or on weekday evenings when it is hot out. Crazy, not fun, and dangerous in my opinion. Most people I see act responsibly, but no doubt, there are some real Bozos out there.

[Malibudude]

Article in Willamette River

FACT: The April 2007 issue of Wakeboarding magazine named the Willamette River as one of the top three waterways for wakeboarding.

I find it interesting that they are using the wakes as an ecological issue. Let see the residential pesticides/fertilizers in storm water run off various pollutants from other water discharges into the river don’t affect the fish. The approximately 25 dams don’t play a part as well in the aquatic health. I agree that the wakes of boarders do have some impact, but the larger riverboat traffic definitely have the potential to create larger wakes than that of wakeboard boats.

Staying in the middle and of course no power turning are two easy ways to help, granted not always possible. Wait until they attack surfing…..

I think the loud music with profanity bears a large part their issues, granted I like my loud stuff too but courtesy goes along way. If you’re near kids change it to something w/o f-bombs and such….

[SC Fam]

You guys in Oregon...man you live in a beautiful state, but you need to bring a lawyer with you anytime you fish, hike, hunt, wakeboard....just to figure out all the rules.

[SC Fam]

Article in Willamette River

FACT: The April 2007 issue of Wakeboarding magazine named the Willamette River as one of the top three waterways for wakeboarding.

I find it interesting that they are using the wakes as an ecological issue. Let see the residential pesticides/fertilizers in storm water run off various pollutants from other water discharges into the river don’t affect the fish. The approximately 25 dams don’t play a part as well in the aquatic health. I agree that the wakes of boarders do have some impact, but the larger riverboat traffic definitely have the potential to create larger wakes than that of wakeboard boats.

Staying in the middle and of course no power turning are two easy ways to help, granted not always possible. Wait until they attack surfing…..

I think the loud music with profanity bears a large part their issues, granted I like my loud stuff too but courtesy goes along way. If you’re near kids change it to something w/o f-bombs and such….

Man...agree with the comment about courtesy. I've been one of those family guys and fishermen over my lifetime and I never get fussed over someone out having a blast on their toys (maybe annoyed at times, but live and let live). But just keep ripping the big music with the foul language and its gonna all get shut down for all of us. Being courteous and even helpful when out on the water with others will do a lot for this sport so the old guys on various boards don't shut us down.

[skurfer]

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.

[obski]

This is the exact area of the river that I use. I actually don't use the wedge very often, so that ban wouldn't bother me too much, but a total ban on all ballast would effect me and how I use my boat. I think this is a casualty of just how popular wakeboarding has become. Ten years ago there was just a smattering of inboard tourney boats on the river. Now the river is congested with Malibus, MCs, Moombas, etc. Maybe I'll have to switch back to more slalom skiing since the disgruntled homeowners aren't targeting that group....yet. I really think this has more to do with just how crowded it has become on the river on weekends during the season. Most other times there is just about no one on that whole stretch.

[WakeGirl]

And it begins. This won't be where it stops unfortunately.

[obski]

I was out on that stretch of river today and had beautiful glass. I only saw one other boat the whole time we were out.

And I think that you are right. This will not likely end just here on the Willamette, but rather other public waterways will be next as there will be a precedent for other disgruntled homeowners.

Edited April 3, 2008 by obski

[auto]

By the time that crap ever gets to Texas, I will be rolling a Cruiser Twin diesel.

[SKI LVR]

I was out on that stretch of river today and had beautiful glass. I only saw one other boat the whole time we were out.

And I think that you are right. This will not likely end just here on the Willamette, but rather other public waterways will be next as there will be a precedent for other disgruntled homeowners.

I was on the golf course, and wondering about the water today. So I got to know:

What was water temp?

and, How much debris in the water?

[skurfer]

And it begins. This won't be where it stops unfortunately.

Agree, I know the homeowners on the Lower Willamette are watching this carefully. Like the Upper Willamette, these people have a ton of money. The Lower homeowners tried for some new laws for wakeboats and large cabin cruisers a couple years ago , but did NOT succeed. I'm sure they'll try again as soon as this goes through. The problem is; it's going to make other places MORE crowded

[apwrx]

This is ridiculous, I see it the same as buying a house next to the highway and then choosing what and how many cars are allowed to travel on it.Would never happen.

I never use the river ,but it outrages me that this actually might happen. So it begins

[obski]

I was out on that stretch of river today and had beautiful glass. I only saw one other boat the whole time we were out.

And I think that you are right. This will not likely end just here on the Willamette, but rather other public waterways will be next as there will be a precedent for other disgruntled homeowners.

I was on the golf course, and wondering about the water today. So I got to know:

What was water temp?

and, How much debris in the water?

My temp gauge is not working, but according to the data at Newberg it was 47F, and that is about what it felt like. There was almost no debris, which is unusual for this time of year. It was absolutely gorgeous on the river and I pretty much had it all to myself.

[GeorgeWBush]

Sorry I disappeared. WG I was kinda joking about the sponsorship, but it possible I suppose if you want to look into it I would just go to the OSMB web site and get a number for someone in PR.

As for banning Ballast, and even getting a ticket for overweighting I bring up a Calabria Pro V 23.5 foot V-drive. It weighs 3500# empty, the USCG approved it for 15 persons: 15 persons x 150# (which is supposed to be the average person...) = 2,250#. The USCG also approved this boat for 2,025# persons and gear. Anybody else notice those #'s don't match? There is also a 55 gal fuel tank, when full that is 456#. Then there are the 700# of ballast engineered by the manufacturer, which in this case can be filled in less that 60 sec. and emptied in 15 sec. So if a person is using this boat with a full tank, and with-in the limits of how the manufactured engineered it to be used, and with out exceeding what the USCG has approved in the # of passengers. That boat would have 3406# on board and according to the capacity plate (also from the USCG) it would be 1381# overweight (also note that this boat now weighs close to 7,000# total). Now lets say you're and educated boater and you remove the capacity plate (boats in Oregon boats over 20' do not need them). Law enforcement in Oregon uses a formula to figure out a boat's max weight capacity: it is length x width / 15. On a Calabria Pro V that = 1700# 325# less than the USCG approved for the boat. Also in Oregon overloading a boat is an "especially hazardous condition" and requires that the voyage be terminated (back to the closest ramp). So that means that a cop that writes a ticket for the boat mentioned above that has 3406# on it would also have to terminate the boats voyage for creating an especially hazardous condition. How can an especially hazardous condition exist on a boat that is being used how the manufacture engineered it to be used? Also the capacity plate contradicts it's self, and neither # matches up to the law enforcements formula. Say that boat had 2,025# on board, a cop could technically write a ticket because it is more than the approved formula, especially if the capacity plate is missing. Sure overloading can be dangerous in a boat like mine that has no seating, no free board and that tends to get excess water in the bilge when the fat sacs are in it, but on a new wakesetter it isn't hazardous at all. Somebody might bring this up at an OSMB meeting if they mention using ballast that makes a boat "overloaded". But a little bird told you....

[obski]

Sorry I disappeared. WG I was kinda joking about the sponsorship, but it possible I suppose if you want to look into it I would just go to the OSMB web site and get a number for someone in PR.

As for banning Ballast, and even getting a ticket for overweighting I bring up a Calabria Pro V 23.5 foot V-drive. It weighs 3500# empty, the USCG approved it for 15 persons: 15 persons x 150# (which is supposed to be the average person...) = 2,250#. The USCG also approved this boat for 2,025# persons and gear. Anybody else notice those #'s don't match? There is also a 55 gal fuel tank, when full that is 456#. Then there are the 700# of ballast engineered by the manufacturer, which in this case can be filled in less that 60 sec. and emptied in 15 sec. So if a person is using this boat with a full tank, and with-in the limits of how the manufactured engineered it to be used, and with out exceeding what the USCG has approved in the # of passengers. That boat would have 3406# on board and according to the capacity plate (also from the USCG) it would be 1381# overweight (also note that this boat now weighs close to 7,000# total). Now lets say you're and educated boater and you remove the capacity plate (boats in Oregon boats over 20' do not need them). Law enforcement in Oregon uses a formula to figure out a boat's max weight capacity: it is length x width / 15. On a Calabria Pro V that = 1700# 325# less than the USCG approved for the boat. Also in Oregon overloading a boat is an "especially hazardous condition" and requires that the voyage be terminated (back to the closest ramp). So that means that a cop that writes a ticket for the boat mentioned above that has 3406# on it would also have to terminate the boats voyage for creating an especially hazardous condition. How can an especially hazardous condition exist on a boat that is being used how the manufacture engineered it to be used? Also the capacity plate contradicts it's self, and neither # matches up to the law enforcements formula. Say that boat had 2,025# on board, a cop could technically write a ticket because it is more than the approved formula, especially if the capacity plate is missing. Sure overloading can be dangerous in a boat like mine that has no seating, no free board and that tends to get excess water in the bilge when the fat sacs are in it, but on a new wakesetter it isn't hazardous at all. Somebody might bring this up at an OSMB meeting if they mention using ballast that makes a boat "overloaded". But a little bird told you....

Unfortunately the way the current meetings regarding the Willamette are going they have very little to do with boats being overloaded or being operated hazardously. They have much more to do with some homeowners on one stretch of the river not liking the traffic out their back doors and the resultant noise and waves. I really do think this has to do with the number of boats out and not so much about the use of ballast or the wedge. As has been already pointed out, many of the boats that are crowding this stretch of river will just make it even more crowded in another stretch, or they will give up on boating entirely. The homeowners want to have their private river to themselves, but need to understand that they live on a publicly owned waterway.

[GeorgeWBush]

Yes but the easiest way for them to attack is to use the existing overloading laws. I was just pointing those things out because currently just about every wake board boat on the river can be removed because they are "overloaded". If cops start doing this there will not be a need for any no wake channel (except for you are probably right the problem is being cause by more than just wake boats). I just think that all you river boaters should be prepared to be pulled over for overloading due to ballast, even factory installed...

[SKI LVR]

Sorry to sound dissenting, but when I'm on that stretch of river, and can hear a boat's stereo a half mile away blasting unpleasant music, I don't like it either. Do you really think we want to hear your music?

Of course, I can just go the other way, the homeowner is immovable. It's amazing how loud the stereo's are on some boats, and it is very loud above the water. The river channel must act like a megaphone or something.

If the speakers were directed into the boats, they would be fine. It's the huge speakers blasting away from the boat that cause trouble. Homeowners are offended similar to your neighbor blasting his stereo while you try to enjoy your private backyard. It just takes away the experience.

I believe the river homeowners accept more boats. They are concerned about huge wakes, but they hate the rude noise from some of them.

Edited April 4, 2008 by SKI LVR

[obski]

The music being played (blasted) has not been the focus of complaints by the homeowners. That being said, I agree that I don't want to listen to someone else's expletive laden music. This comes down to being curteous of others.

I imagine that laws will eventually be handed down that will regulate this as well.

[skurfer]

GeorgeWBush,

They've talked about overloading in the wake group meetings. They ran a wake test with a Moomba LSV, full ballast, somewhere around 6 people in the boat. Officials determined the boat was "overloaded" beyond the capacity plate. With full ballast, the Moomba should only be allowed to have like 2-3 people in the boat per the capacity plate. That's kind have been our thing. There are laws out there, start enforcing them, but a ban on ballast, wedges, "Weapons of Marine Destruction", etc. really hit us from right field. This is the first it has ever come up. Mostly because that's probably what a some homeowners want.

Ski LVR- I actually tend to agree, but why not make an ordinance on loud music and enforce it? On a side note, my Aunt hates people playing music at the lake, for the same reason, nobody wants to hear it. I feel bad, b/c when we first got our inboard we blasted those tower speakers all over the lake! We don't do that anymore, but at least we don't do it for our early morning ski runs!

[skurfer]

The music being played (blasted) has not been the focus of complaints by the homeowners. That being said, I agree that I don't want to listen to someone else's expletive laden music. This comes down to being curteous of others.

I imagine that laws will eventually be handed down that will regulate this as well.

obski, do you think the loud music is the real reason they're upset? But they're using the erosion as a means?