Erosion Concerns

[wakebrdr94]

I do put my boat on my dock. My dock doesn't worry about any of the other crap. I CHOSE to purchase where I am because I did not want my boat beat up all day long as I know how the main river is. The difference is YOU are responsible for YOUR wake. Hypothetical, if your wake was large enough and it put a boat onto a dock, would you fix the repairs? Maybe you would, But from your argument, it sounds more like your answer would be the owner shouldn't have docked there, or tied off tighter, whatever excuse to make it not your fault.

Unfortunately, most people blame everyone else for their mistake. If my Porsche was hit in the street, it's it my fault for parking there, or the person who hit and run my car? Someone made the mention of if you live on a golf course, expect your going to take some balls to your house, fair enough. Is it reasonable to expect the person who hit the ball into your window would fix it?

And before you put my moral character into question, I did slice a ball into someone's window, jumped the fence, left a note and my number. ( didn't say I wasa great golfer). My buddy thought I was nuts for doing that and paying for it. We're not in high shool, we're adults. Adults dont break a window and run away, you own up to your mistake and fix it. Maybe I'm in the minority, but if more people acted responsibly, and respected others, there wouldn't be an issue to begin with

Edited October 23, 2012 by wakebrdr94

[Lance B. Johnson]

No one is advocating irresponsible behavior here. Personally I know better than to put my boat on my dock as it will get damaged given my surroundings and location. If I am dumb enough to tie my boat to my dock then I will pay for the damages because I was the irresponsible one.

However if my boat is properly tied off given the surroundings and THEN my boat gets damaged, you can bet I will get the hull number and info from the person that did it. That's all we are saying.

Look I can boil this whole conversation down into one statement. If you still don't get it then you and Cliff never will.

Punish the people that break the law, don't punish everyone that uses ballast for their sport of choice.

If you can argue with that statement then your just arguing for arguments sake.

[CliffB]

Yeah, like I said bud...........go get on your boat, on your lake, and ride your glass, and have YOUR fun. That is all your concerned about anyway; your needs & wants. Have fun shaking your fist at those young whipper snappers "boning up YOUR skiing"!

I'll continue to share the water as I always have.

Oh and to your point "it wasn't like this 20 years ago"........ Are you really being serious right now?

You're missing the point completely. I'll say it again for you so you might get it this time.

Everyone has an interest at stake here from anglers to skiers to sun bathers to property owners to wake surfers. And everyone has some reasonable expectation to be able to recreate in their own way, provided they are not unreasonably (ie. eliminating...) the recreational wants of others. When one group eliminates the recreational ability of others that's just bad behavior. Does an angler bother anyone? Nope. Does a paddle boarder bother anyone? No. Does a water skier with a minimal wake bother anyone? Nope. Does a property owner bother anyone? Not usually. Does a big a** wake from a wake boat bother anyone? Yeah, it does, it bothers a fairly larger number of these other individuals. Hence the trend towards local ordinances banning artificial wake creation. Duh. It's a real simple concept, and I know you get it.

Learn to read. Again, this isn't about me individually, this is about the rights of everyone to reasonably enjoy their recreational desires.

Just because I drive a Malibu doesn't mean I need to support the right to make a huge a** wake for individual enjoyment. I don't, and I'm too old to give a crap what others think of me speaking my mind openly here. I have a right to a well thought out opinion, and nobody needs to agree with me - that's the heart of a healthy debate. What I will say is that I get a large number of thumbs up and private messages from people on this forum in support of what I'm saying. These are people who agree with the points I make, but just don't want to be labeled and subjected to bone headed criticism by people much less diplomatic than themselves. Personally, I have a thicker skin, and I believe a healthy debate starts out with open and honest dialog.

ps. regarding your comment "That is all your concerned about anyway" - "your" is the possessive. What you want is "you're" which is the contraction of "you" and "are"

Edited October 24, 2012 by CliffB

[Bradley Thornton]

I can't read anymore!!!! LOL Did anyone go what is the out come.

[Sixball]

I think you would need to be a lake front owner to completely understand the issues we see. You may believe you know? Another thing each area will differ. State laws, shore line make up, grades, depth of water approaching shore . Just so many things to look at and understand. For someone to presume wakes or our actions on our lakes and rivers are not effecting property owners and other boaters would be less then honest.

[Lance B. Johnson]

I think you would need to be a lake front owner to completely understand the issues we see. You may believe you know? Another thing each area will differ. State laws, shore line make up, grades, depth of water approaching shore . Just so many things to look at and understand. For someone to presume wakes or our actions on our lakes and rivers are not effecting property owners and other boaters would be less then honest.

I don't think you took the time to read the whole thread six. (can't say I really blame you) But several (myself included) owners have had their input in this thread. The ones that contributed to this thread realize they own the house not the water.

And I must reiterate once again. Every persons actions affects someone else. Whether you surf, ski, wakeboard, tube, fish, cruise, foil, whatever, at one time or another our actions ALWAYS affect someone else. I can't even tell you how many sessions have been interrupted by fisherman, wakeboarders, jetskis, skiers, tubers this year. We just roll with it while others want to legislate rules that, for all purposes, exclude.

Six the argument here, if I might fill you in, is about excluding certain groups of people on the false pretense of erosion and or property damage. The real issue here isn't about either one.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Ruffdog

[Lance B. Johnson]

You're missing the point completely. I'll say it again for you so you might get it this time.

Everyone has an interest at stake here from anglers to skiers to sun bathers to property owners to wake surfers. And everyone has some reasonable expectation to be able to recreate in their own way, provided they are not unreasonably (ie. eliminating...) the recreational wants of others. When one group eliminates the recreational ability of others that's just bad behavior. Does an angler bother anyone? Nope. Does a paddle boarder bother anyone? No. Does a water skier with a minimal wake bother anyone? Nope. Does a property owner bother anyone? Not usually. Does a big a** wake from a wake boat bother anyone? Yeah, it does, it bothers a fairly larger number of these other individuals. Hence the trend towards local ordinances banning artificial wake creation. Duh. It's a real simple concept, and I know you get it.

Learn to read. Again, this isn't about me individually, this is about the rights of everyone to reasonably enjoy their recreational desires.

Just because I drive a Malibu doesn't mean I need to support the right to make a huge a** wake for individual enjoyment. I don't, and I'm too old to give a crap what others think of me speaking my mind openly here. I have a right to a well thought out opinion, and nobody needs to agree with me - that's the heart of a healthy debate. What I will say is that I get a large number of thumbs up and private messages from people on this forum in support of what I'm saying. These are people who agree with the points I make, but just don't want to be labeled and subjected to bone headed criticism by people much less diplomatic than themselves. Personally, I have a thicker skin, and I believe a healthy debate starts out with open and honest dialog.

ps. regarding your comment "That is all your concerned about anyway" - "your" is the possessive. What you want is "you're" which is the contraction of "you" and "are"

:rofl:

You've got to go there to support your argument?

Edited October 24, 2012 by Ruffdog

[CliffB]

"Bone-headed criticism" and people much less "diplomatic than themselves"....... You mean like finding one grammatical error in 20 posts and pointing it out just for the sake of trying to provoke someone? Hmmmm.

I don't expect you to see this from another point of view, other than your own, but:

Do fishermen bother anyone? Uhh, yeah. Especially when they outnumber you 30/40/50 to 1 on a given day. Especially when a vast majority of them are really experienced fishermen, and really inexperienced boaters. Ever seen a boat ramp during salmon season? I'm betting not. Also, when they tie up in hog lines, they virtually shut down portions of the river. BUT, they have that right to their given activity, even if it interferes with mine.

Do slalom skiers bother anyone? Yes. I've had numerous waterskiiers overtake me while we're both pulling riders in our narrow slough. This is not only unsafe, but creates a 1/2 mile stretch where neither rider has the room to maneuver/ride. Real smart. Why not make a tight turn (something ski boats have no trouble doing) and head back the other direction? Plus, skiers and their drivers are notorious for following your line down the river. Great, I understand why, but the problem is they are moving 15 mph faster than us. This means eventually, they are going to be waaaaay too close for comfort, especially once the rider is down. This puts the driver of a wake boat in a precarious situation: Trust that the driver sees your rider and slowly get back to him OR make a power turn and head directly back at the ski boat (while the ski boat swerves at 35mph to avoid the wake boat). BUT again, skiiers have every bit as much right to the water as I do.

Does a paddle boarder (or sea kayaker, in our area) bother anyone? Yes, of course. When these guys encroach into an area where wakeboarding or surfing is going on, those activities basically have to stop OR you have to vastly alter your line (not always easy with a rider who is not connected to the boat when there are a million other obstacles to avoid: rocks, no wake zones, other boaters lines, etc). Again, it's their water too.

I really think you're missing the point here, which is : We all need to share the water. I fear that while you're "too old to give a crap what other people think" you might also be too old to be taught how to share. Things change boss. Just because the lake used to only have slalom skiers, doesn't mean it's your right to legislate that it stays that way. These are PUBLIC waterways.

Anyway, I'm done discussing the matter. I've said all I need to say and I really don't see the need to keep restating my points to an angry, old, fist-shaking man telling me to stay off his property.

And just so you know.......with the introduction of SurfGate.... wakesurfing is going to do nothing but grow! Enjoy!

BS, thank you, I appreciate your thoughtful, and non-inflammatory response here.

Yes, I've seen a boat launch ramp during salmon season. I live in Seattle for god's sake. What I haven't seen before is fisherman blocking navigable waters in really numbers. Perhaps that doesn't happen on Lake Washington here to any huge degree, but if you say it happens in your area I'll believe you. Fisherman blocking or hampering anyone to a problematic degree is just not something I'm personally familiar with in this area.

Paddle boarders? Ah, come on...when was the last time a paddle boarder caused anyone some impairment of their enjoyment of their recreation? I've never seen it personally, but I suppose it has happened somewhere. As a category though, paddleboarders aren't causing anyone any concern....there's no such thing as an anti-paddleboarder ordinance, for good reason.

Ski boats? Sure, there's some impact to skiing behind a ski boat, you're absolutely right. But as a matter of degree it's considerably less and really just limited to the space requirement of a boat travelling at 25mph with a skier, not really anything to do with wake. And again, large wakes seem to be the thing that's caught the ire of local authorities and property owners lately. Just look again at the two youtube clips I posted - it's pretty dramatic the difference...

I'm not saying that wake-sports don't have a place like any other category of recreation....anglers, skiers, paddleboarders, grandma sitting on the floating doc, etc.....they do. I'm just saying that there's a larger impact on others with big wake sports (in my view and experience) than these other categories. And that's exactly why wake sports are getting some backlash from local authorities by way of limiting ordinances. If I was into wake sports, the last thing I'd be doing is calling skiers or fishermen or property owners narrow minded a-holes, that serves no productive purpose. I'd be looking at how wake sports are impacting and trying to lessen the impact without diminishing the fun and availability of the sport. If you lessen the negative impact then you take away the ammo of the regulating authorities to outlaw it.

If you don't mind, I'll tell you exactly how this is going to go over time.....because I've seen the same dynamics play out a hundred times in other settings: in the battle for whose interests triumph (skiers v. fishermen v wake boarders v property owners, etc.), it'll be the people with money and influence who win. That's the way it always works, like it or not. And who in the mix is it that have the most money and influence? You guessed it: lake front homeowners. Lake front homeowners are exactly the people who are on local regulating bodies (county councils and city councils in the case of public lakes, homeowners associations in the case of private lakes, for example) or who know the people on these local bodies. They also have money to spend to hire lawyers to organize them and represent them effectively. They're also determined - they have $$ to lose in diminished property values if things get out of control. This is exactly why there's an increasing passage rate for wake-regulating ordinances on lakes all across America. If I was a wake boarder, and wanted to avoid having my sport eventually outlawed on many, if not most, of the lakes I want to enjoy it upon, I'd get real serious about getting organized in a big hurry, and also building a war chest of $$'s with which to start fighting some of these battles. The casual (unfunded/non-professional) wake boarding guy who shows up at a public meeting of the local authority to review the proposed wake-regulation ordinance is going to lose every time against the well-prepared (and paid) attorney hired by the property owners. Right or wrong (I happen to think that's dead wrong), that's how it works.

There are some creative solutions available - things like certain days when wake boarding is/isn't allowed, perhaps maximum wake sizes (is a three or four foot wave high enough?), wake making not allowed in certain parts of the lake (close in parts), etc. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing situation. Everyone can compromise a bit, and probably all get along.

You might think I'm a crotchety old man, to which I have no response other than "no, I'm just a realist" I don't want to see wake sports banned from lakes, i just want to see the impact of wake sports moderated so that everyone else can enjoy their stuff on the lake too. I got in exactly two ski runs this whole past season....90% due to the increasing chop on the lake, and 10% due to my wife being an incompetent driver.

ps. if you think surfgate is somehow going to avoid the mega wake-hating ire of property owners and local authorities you're living in a dream land. The scope of ordinances will be drafted such that any artificial wake-making apparatus will be banned, not just ballast methods. The people drafting these laws aren't dummies.

Edited October 24, 2012 by CliffB

[Brett B]

Dude. You've missed the point this whole thread.

Nobody is saying a ski wake is as big as a surf wake as you asserted.

Nobody is condoning reckless boating.

Nobody is saying they aren't responsible for their behavior or wake as you're now saying.

YES, for crying out loud, if you live on a golf course, you should expect that whomever broke your window should pay for it (that's actually a law)..... BUT what you cannot do IS BAN FLYING WHITE OBJECTS ON A FREAKING GOLF COURSE! Well you can try I guess, but don't expect support from those with more than half a brain.

It doesn't get much more clear than this.

[85 Barefoot]

I live on a lake. Erosion no concern. Storms cause as much erosion as big waves. However, in areas where erosion has the potential to be a concern, I would hazard a guess that the stereos are the number one reason for the push back on wakes. I am even sick and tired of being on the beach, boat, etc, with kids, and listening to someone else's rap music. Lets be honest here, in my area anyway, 90% of the tower systems are cranking nothing but F this, F you lyrics. And guess what all those boats are doing? Fishing? Nope. Skiing? Nope. they are all wakeboarding and surfing. My guess is that any argument about erosion is just the means to the end of getting the boombox wakeboats off the lake and polluting the air.

[CincyVLX]

There are some creative solutions available - things like certain days when wake boarding is/isn't allowed, perhaps maximum wake sizes (is a three or four foot wave high enough?), wake making not allowed in certain parts of the lake (close in parts), etc. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing situation. Everyone can compromise a bit, and probably all get along.

So you want the DNR of your state to measure the surf wave of a boat? Exactly how will that happen?

Wake making in certain parts of the lake are called No Wake Zones. We've had them for a long time.

I agree that there must be some sort of solution so that nothing gets banned.

There are already regulation to avoid a lot of your concerns:

1. You are responsible for your own wake (Pretty much a law in every state)

2. No wake zones (They are there for a reason, maybe there need to be more in certain lakes/rivers)

3. No wake within 300 feet of a dock (Not often followed, or enforced)

The problem is not lack of regulations, it's lack of enforcement.

Edited October 24, 2012 by CincyVLX

[Lance B. Johnson]

I live on a lake. Erosion no concern. Storms cause as much erosion as big waves. However, in areas where erosion has the potential to be a concern, I would hazard a guess that the stereos are the number one reason for the push back on wakes. I am even sick and tired of being on the beach, boat, etc, with kids, and listening to someone else's rap music. Lets be honest here, in my area anyway, 90% of the tower systems are cranking nothing but F this, F you lyrics. And guess what all those boats are doing? Fishing? Nope. Skiing? Nope. they are all wakeboarding and surfing. My guess is that any argument about erosion is just the means to the end of getting the boombox wakeboats off the lake and polluting the air.

Well right on. I think what your saying here is enforce a noise ordinance.

[85 Barefoot]

Well right on. I think what your saying here is enforce a noise ordinance.

Sure, but property owners know darn well there are noise ordinances in cities and that does little or nothing. So if 90% of people comply with the noise ordinance and 10% don't you still have the same problem. Only way is to make the wakeboats WANT to go elsewhere. Now I'm not saying I like that, but I would feel pretty confident the wake rules are just the means to accomplishing the goal of a quieter experience for property owners and wakes are not the primary issue. JUST my opinion though.

[Lance B. Johnson]

Sure, but property owners know darn well there are noise ordinances in cities and that does little or nothing. So if 90% of people comply with the noise ordinance and 10% don't you still have the same problem. Only way is to make the wakeboats WANT to go elsewhere. Now I'm not saying I like that, but I would feel pretty confident the wake rules are just the means to accomplishing the goal of a quieter experience for property owners and wakes are not the primary issue. JUST my opinion though.

I agree entirely. I am not sure that noise is 100 percent of the problem though. Some people just don't want to share the water.

[Sixball]

My statement is meant to say I have see many things in this post that are not completely true! I am not saying its deliberate lying, I am saying it differs from lake to lake. States have much different laws.

Sometimes laws or winter ice do not allow for docks that are not effected by wakes.

Shoreline that are mud or dirt or sand ( if steep ) are very much effected by boat wakes.

I have a friend who broke his back from compression shattered a vertebra after hitting a wake.

I know we stop skiing as soon as the lake starts to get busy. For safety reasons. I don’t like telling kids I wont take you out, the lake is just to busy.

I have had my dock smashed from a drunk boater who lost control of his boat. Three doors down had a boat over his pontoon into his shed. Living on a lake we see and experience a lot of drunks.

I see posts saying boats should not over take other boats. We must weave or way through many other boats to ski or surf. At that point maybe its best to change our activity. I know it may be ignorance of other boaters that cause some of the problems. I often see very slow moving pontoons or cursing boats in the middle forcing faster boats to go closer to docks and beaches.

I just think we all need to be aware of what we are doing its affecting others. Sometimes we must chose what we are doing for reasons we can not control.

The laws we have are not enforced well. Many times the offenders are forgiven in court for technicalities. This sometimes leaves lake front owners to try to pass other laws to try to control boating.

I am not one that likes to see laws passed for reasons like this just saying its happening. I sit on boards in my township I spend many many hours working on our lake issues and three other lakes in our area. I attend township meeting and fight for our and other lakes. But as a lake front owner and skier I do not look at my views as a skier I work to keep the lakes useable to all.

[Murphy8166]

Has anyone also mentioned that increase in traffic on Lake Austin b/c of the extremely low water level on Lake Travis. Unfortunately over the past couple of years - rain has been pretty sparse in central texas and the surrounding "non constant level" lakes have had limited or no access at all.

Austin TX is a Big wakeboat area....lot of younger, well off individuals and families down there.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Murphy8166

[Michigan boarder]

I can't read anymore!!!! LOL Did anyone go what is the out come.

Yeah, what's the word?

[Cen Tx Dealer]

Back to the question in the first post about Lake Austin.

We, along with many reps from other dealerships, wakeboard and surf enthusiasts, clubs and schools attended the meeting. It was standing room-only with the vast majority supprting all types of water sports.

The major problem we have on Lake Austin now is hyrilla weed. All the other concerns are pretty secondary until this problem is solved. Lake Austin has had this Hydrilla weed over the years and it is drained periodically in January to kill it in freezing temps. This weed has exploded over the last 2 yrs due partially to low levels on Lake Travis, right above Lake Austin. The water temp used to be pretty cold due to the water coming from the bottom of Travis. Now that Travis is so low, the water coming in to Austin is much warmer and the weed has just exploded. There are many areas where people cant get their boats out of their docks and boaters have to swerve to miss the giant floating mounds of weeds in the middle of the lake. If you hit a patch of it, you have to stop the boat and hammer it in reverse to get it off. It feels like you just drove your car off the pavement into a mudhole.

They will not drain Austin this year for fears there may not be sufficent water to refill it. Carp that eat this weed have been added to the lake, but they have not made a dent in the problem.

Chemicals are pretty much off the table because this is, well, Austin after all. Further, it is used as drinking supply for cities from Austin to the Gulf of Mexico.

I forsee that this problem will be addressed before all the wakesurf/erosion stuff gets serious consideration.

Rob

Central Texas Water Sports

[CliffB]

So you want the DNR of your state to measure the surf wave of a boat? Exactly how will that happen?

Wake making in certain parts of the lake are called No Wake Zones. We've had them for a long time.

I agree that there must be some sort of solution so that nothing gets banned.

There are already regulation to avoid a lot of your concerns:

1. You are responsible for your own wake (Pretty much a law in every state)

2. No wake zones (They are there for a reason, maybe there need to be more in certain lakes/rivers)

3. No wake within 300 feet of a dock (Not often followed, or enforced)

The problem is not lack of regulations, it's lack of enforcement.

Well, apparently a whole boat load of local authorities don't agree with you. They're passing specific ordinances to target wake boats (on top of existing wake-related ordinances) to further regulate specific behavior.

You may well be right that lack of enforcement is also a problem, but that seems to be taking a back seat to enforcement. You know why? Because enforcement costs a LOT of $.

[CliffB]

This situation has some strong parallels to the spotted owl debate that happened many years ago. The spotted owl was just a proxy in the battle for control between environmentalists and land owners/forestry. Nobody really cared too much about the spotted owl, it was just the means to the end to bring the power battle to a head, same as "erosion"

At the heart of it it's a battle over control. Erosion, wakes, noise, etc. are just the symptoms and proxy for bringing the fight to a head. Unfortunately, my experience has been that those who are most deep-pocketed, better organized, and have more to lose win out in 95% of these situations. That just how it always works out.

If I was a wake-guy I'd be real interested in getting a national association together to organize and fundraise a very large amount of money - money that would be used to both generate some data in support of wake sports, and to hire advocates at the local and state and national levels.

Interesting update on the environmental issues on Lake Austin. That's a real shame. Lots of lakes seem to be struggling with similar issues, particularly the lower levels. Maybe there's something to this whole climate change theory.

Edited October 24, 2012 by CliffB

[Michigan boarder]

And a huge THANK YOU to Cent Tex Dealer for updating us all!

Yes. I guess the good news is that everyone on the lake will likely work together to solve the weed issue. It affects everyone equally, big wake, small wake, fishing, pontoon, etc. People should use that opportunity to start good discussions about the real issues, and develop a good plan for sharing the water.

Which brings up a point - who pays for the fix? Is the expense shared equally amongst all taxpayers in the county? Or state? Do the homeowners pay for it? Here in Michigan there are a lot of lakes wherein the lake association arranges for weed treatment, water tests, etc. and that cost is divided up by the houses on the lake. Naturally, homeowners tend to be more territorial about the lake when they are paying for it, and do not value the opinions of public access boaters (as much). This helps create the "Stay off my beach" versus "It's public water" argument. Fortunately for me so far, our association dues are like $35 a year (negligible), so I am not affected, but I can see how that wedge (no pun intended) can develop.

[wakebrdr94]

@BS

I want you to know and I agree with on the points that the laws on the books need to be enforced. I have never said that any sport should be banned, which would be silly if I did as I own a wakesetter. I have argued bigger wakes have the potential to do more damage, which I think most of us can agree on. And lastly, I have said that we all need to have consideration for others and take responsibility for our actions or damage our wakes cause. The biggest issue being the last point as other people don't do it. I honestly believe we are one the same side, just have different ideals on how to get there.

That being said, I think you have proven my argument for me. Your words " Heck, if this was my local lake I'd be installing a secret secondary switch to my ballast.  That way as I got pulled over, I'd simply pull my wedge up and , voila.... Try and prove I was using a wake enhancing device..... When I hit my ballast switches nothing is going to come out."

This is the point, people think laws don't apply to them and do what they want. This and lack of consideration is where we will find new laws enacted, which will hurt all of us

[CincyVLX]

Well, apparently a whole boat load of local authorities don't agree with you. They're passing specific ordinances to target wake boats (on top of existing wake-related ordinances) to further regulate specific behavior.

You may well be right that lack of enforcement is also a problem, but that seems to be taking a back seat to enforcement. You know why? Because enforcement costs a LOT of $.

So they are going to make more laws that they won't enforce? Your argument makes no sense.

[wakebrdr94]

I see your point, I really do. It would be a mess. Nobody is talking about the 30ft sea ray that throws up a big wake on its own. But they are talking about banning WEDs, which relates to most of us here, wakeboard boat owners. I said I agreed with you on most points. The sad thing is you don't see mine, and like it or not, eventually the water front home owners who use erosion as there fight will win.

PS. Just because we differ on points of view, and it's been heated at times, doesnt mean I wouldn't give you pull if you were down this way

[Sixball]

"What I said was an example showing how hard it would be to enforce a WED's law vs. a noise ordinance"

You would think but not true. I have not checked in over a year but all the Noise violations written in the last years have been thrown out. Mich. law said boat must read a x number of disables at X feet at X angle. So if you go to court it gets thrown out. The Sheriff can not show it meet all the distances angles and disables.