Wisconsin New Spotter Law Needing Support

[JeffC]

I detest laws that are put in place to "protect" us from ourselves.   It implies some pencil neck politician is better equipped to make that decision FOR ME from a cushy chair in a capitol chamber than I am on the lake or river.   That doesn't mean that I am reckless about it.   If I make a reckless decision, then I need to be accountable for the result.  I have been out in places (when I lived back in Ohio) and at times where there wasn't a boat within a mile.  There was no reason that I can think of why one could not go out safely for an early morning set without a spotter.  I feel the same way about motorcycle helmet laws.   When I had a bike I would not ride it across the parking lot without my helmet, but I HATED the law.

Here in Colorado, I would not dream of operating without a spotter.   Our lake is small, fairly narrow, and VERY busy, usually even early in the morning.  I want a spotter because driving the boat and watching for other boats (or even debris) is more than enough of a job.   I CHOOSE to have a spotter, but not because the government told me I had to. 

[minnmarker]

On 2/25/2017 at 8:18 AM, ksdaoski said:

If you're from WI, and support this bill, be sure to let your state reps know!  

Here's a link where you can easily look up who your reps are and their contact information, based on where you live: 

http://maps.legis.wisconsin.gov/

 

Thanks!

 

Done

[dtm8119]

I'll send them an email too.  Besides a higher concentration of Packer fans, this is one of the reasons I wouldn't retire to Wisconsin  

They even take it to another level at my wives family cabin.  In the township, you can only make a wake from 10am-4pm.  Do a weekend trip there each year and of course each morning/evening is glass and you can only stare at it.

[MattyICE15]

4 minutes ago, dtm8119 said:

I'll send them an email too.  Besides a higher concentration of Packer fans, this is one of the reasons I wouldn't retire to Wisconsin  

They even take it to another level at my wives family cabin.  In the township, you can only make a wake from 10am-4pm.  Do a weekend trip there each year and of course each morning/evening is glass and you can only stare at it.

I know the feeling! At our place in Salem WI, the rules were 10am-7pm. Slightly bitter than 4pm but still decreased our window of opportunity. They have since lifted the night cap and made it until sunset which is nice. I think they keep it at 10am to give the fishermen some alone time =(. Still wish I could rip around in the early hours though...

[braindamage]

2 hours ago, onwi said:

 

Just an FYI.  Wisconsin went through this process last year as well.  The 2016 version of this bill was one open vote away from going to the governor for his approval.  Last year's version was caught up in an assembly committee for a large portion of the year which forced the final vote to be a last minute decision when items that move the needle a bit more are also up for discussion with the clock running out on the legislative year.

As others have mentioned, please continue to contact you local reps. I attended a listening session for my assembly-person, discussed the bill with him and now he is a cosponsor.  The staff of the original author, Senator Terry Moulton, also indicated there may be a public comment period.  Last year nobody showed up.  This made it much easier for the bill to linger in committee.   So, contact the reps for the committees along the bill's progression.  Currently the bill is in the sporting, mining and forestry committee.  The chair, Senator Tiffany, of that committee is from Hazelhurst, so lake issues should register a bit more for him than the average Senator.      

As for the safety discussion.  This is the information used by Senator Moulton to advertise the bill for cosponsors:

Current Wisconsin law requires that in addition to the driver, an observer or “spotter” be onboard to observe a water skier’s progress. This bill is modeled after a 56-year-old Minnesota law and would exempt motorboats that have a wide-view rear-facing mirror from the requirement to have an on-board observer while towing a water skier.

Since 1960, residents and visitors in Minnesota, the birthplace of waterskiing, have been able to waterski without an observer when their ski boat is equipped with a wide-view rear-facing mirror. In 2015, Minnesota had 185,000 more registered motorboats than Wisconsin, but only had 11 skier-related incidents, four fewer than Wisconsin. Over the past 6 years, Minnesota has had 28% fewer skier-involved incidents per 100,000 registered boats.

According to the Department of Tourism, of all those who traveled to Wisconsin in 2015 for vacation (not visiting family, friends, or on business), 76% had two or fewer adults in their party. Under current law, these parties would not be able to waterski during their visit to Wisconsin without finding a third person. This bill allows for broader participation in recreational watersports on our lakes - especially by residents and tourists who enjoy our lakes with just one other person. 

Counties, cities, towns, villages, public inland lake protection and rehabilitation districts, and town sanitary districts are already able to enact local boating regulations in the interest of public health, safety or welfare.  As such, this bill effectively removes the statewide mandate and gives decision-making power on this issue back to local governments. Any local government that wishes to require a spotter while water skiing would still be able to enact such an ordinance.

In my opinion, this is more being responsible for my own safety.  I know when I can ride without a spotter and when I need a third.  I'm not worried about my crew, and we go without a spotter regularly.  The argument of course is what about the others on the lake.  Do I trust them?  And when I look at the fact that Wisconsin has zero requirements for pfds while being towed or sitting in a boat, other than that they be accessible, and the fact that I never see people riding without them; I feel that the boating public has shown they can make appropriate safety choices in this regard.

That said, I also support requirements for pfds and increases in LEOs on the lakes to look for and protect against drinking while boating. 

 

What is a LEO?

[onwi]

Just now, braindamage said:

What is a LEO?

Sorry, Law Enforcement Officer.

[tjklein]

32 minutes ago, alpensurf23 said:

Also spelled PIG..

Real mature attitude.  Also, one of the first people to be at your door when you might need help some day.

All in all someone got a ticket for breaking a state law.  A warning would have been nice for sure, but you can't be upset if you break the law (knowingly or not) and get a ticket.

 

[RedOwl]

3 hours ago, JeffC said:

I detest laws that are put in place to "protect" us from ourselves.   It implies some pencil neck politician is better equipped to make that decision FOR ME from a cushy chair in a capitol chamber than I am on the lake or river...

Just to make a point that might help people lobby/advocate better on behalf of this (and other issues): it is rarely an elected official that concocts ideas and passes laws out of the clear blue sky. Most of the time elected representatives are contacted by an interested party and sign on to an idea.

Using the same logic, there is often power in numbers to amend, modify or eliminate a law that has previously been codified. Contacting your representative is a great way to have an impact. Having groups similar to http://www.waterski.org/contact/wwsf-officers.html is also extremely helpful.

Politicians get the credit and the blame, but they are rarely the creators or obstructionists we make them out to be.

 

 

[braindamage]

Just now, onwi said:

Sorry, Law Enforcement Officer.

Thanks!

like I said, I'm very conflicted. I'm a strong believer in our fundamental right to make our own choices and manage our own risks

[onwi]

1 minute ago, braindamage said:

Thanks!

like I said, I'm very conflicted. I'm a strong believer in our fundamental right to make our own choices and manage our own risks

Obviously, I'm a strong supporter.  I certainly understand the apprehension, but I don't think the scenario we worry about will come to be.  In reality it isn't going to drastically alter my behavior.  I'll ride with a spotter when people are available.  The social aspect of boating will always be an important part of the mix - I want to bring a decent group out and have fun.  But, hopefully with this law, when a friend and I want to get a quick set in when others are busy or not interested (to cold, work hours, to early, to late, etc.) I'll be legal.  Right now I ride without a spotter on one of the busiest lakes in Waukesha County.  But, during those events the lake is as empty as you'll ever find it.  Nobody was bothered when we went without a spotter in December!

And I think the same can be said for the crazy driver we have in our heads.  I just don't believe that the reckless group is going to see this law and think "Sweet, now I can rip it up at noon on the 4th of July without a spotter".  When it's busy they are already going to be out on the lake.  They come with a big group and they go for the social outing.  That's also when the beer comes out.  I don't see 2 guys switching tube rides while downing beers on a busy day.      

[footndale]

10 hours ago, onwi said:

Just an FYI.  Wisconsin went through this process last year as well.  The 2016 version of this bill was one open vote away from going to the governor for his approval.  Last year's version was caught up in an assembly committee for a large portion of the year which forced the final vote to be a last minute decision when items that move the needle a bit more are also up for discussion with the clock running out on the legislative year.

As others have mentioned, please continue to contact you local reps. I attended a listening session for my assembly-person, discussed the bill with him and now he is a cosponsor.  The staff of the original author, Senator Terry Moulton, also indicated there may be a public comment period.  Last year nobody showed up.  This made it much easier for the bill to linger in committee.   So, contact the reps for the committees along the bill's progression.  Currently the bill is in the sporting, mining and forestry committee.  The chair, Senator Tiffany, of that committee is from Hazelhurst, so lake issues should register a bit more for him than the average Senator.      

As for the safety discussion.  This is the information used by Senator Moulton to advertise the bill for cosponsors:

Current Wisconsin law requires that in addition to the driver, an observer or “spotter” be onboard to observe a water skier’s progress. This bill is modeled after a 56-year-old Minnesota law and would exempt motorboats that have a wide-view rear-facing mirror from the requirement to have an on-board observer while towing a water skier.

Since 1960, residents and visitors in Minnesota, the birthplace of waterskiing, have been able to waterski without an observer when their ski boat is equipped with a wide-view rear-facing mirror. In 2015, Minnesota had 185,000 more registered motorboats than Wisconsin, but only had 11 skier-related incidents, four fewer than Wisconsin. Over the past 6 years, Minnesota has had 28% fewer skier-involved incidents per 100,000 registered boats.

According to the Department of Tourism, of all those who traveled to Wisconsin in 2015 for vacation (not visiting family, friends, or on business), 76% had two or fewer adults in their party. Under current law, these parties would not be able to waterski during their visit to Wisconsin without finding a third person. This bill allows for broader participation in recreational watersports on our lakes - especially by residents and tourists who enjoy our lakes with just one other person. 

Counties, cities, towns, villages, public inland lake protection and rehabilitation districts, and town sanitary districts are already able to enact local boating regulations in the interest of public health, safety or welfare.  As such, this bill effectively removes the statewide mandate and gives decision-making power on this issue back to local governments. Any local government that wishes to require a spotter while water skiing would still be able to enact such an ordinance.

In my opinion, this is more being responsible for my own safety.  I know when I can ride without a spotter and when I need a third.  I'm not worried about my crew, and we go without a spotter regularly.  The argument of course is what about the others on the lake.  Do I trust them?  And when I look at the fact that Wisconsin has zero requirements for pfds while being towed or sitting in a boat, other than that they be accessible, and the fact that I never see people riding without them; I feel that the boating public has shown they can make appropriate safety choices in this regard.

That said, I also support requirements for pfds and increases in LEOs on the lakes to look for and protect against drinking while boating.  

 

The law does say a PFD for each person in boat and being towed. I do not support PFDs being required to be worn, since that would eliminate barefooters and wakeboarders from being legal.

[The Hulk]

Here in IN we copy the Cali cats, and just inflate life-size blow up babes with wigs.. problem though is the DNR often comes over to get a closer look of all the naked chicks ?

[hethj7]

1 minute ago, footndale said:

The law does say a PFD for each person in boat and being towed. I do not support PFDs being required to be worn, since that would eliminate barefooters and wakeboarders from being legal.

Huh?  Most footers and boarders you know don't wear PFDs?  Or am I reading this wrong?

[UWSkier]

9 minutes ago, hethj7 said:

Huh?  Most footers and boarders you know don't wear PFDs?  Or am I reading this wrong?

Not USCG-approved PFDs.  Nor do most hardcore slalom guys.  Impact vests and barefoot suits are not USCG approved.

[onwi]

16 minutes ago, hethj7 said:

Huh?  Most footers and boarders you know don't wear PFDs?  Or am I reading this wrong?

Footers wear shorty suits often in place of pfds. I believe they often give a bit of flotation. 

Every wakeboard I know wears some type of pfd. The split between cga and competition style varies. Im sure this isn't news to you. 

To be clear, the law doesn't change anything regarding pfds. My comment only referred to my belief that a pfd would be higher on my list for safety than a spotter. I also never said anything about what type. 

Edited February 28, 2017 by onwi

[hethj7]

Got it.  Comp vs USGC approved.  Kind of like states that don't require motorcycle helmets - I used to still wear one!

[Sixball]

Michigan law requires USCG-approved PFDs for all pulling sports.

[alpensurf23]

10 hours ago, tjklein said:

Real mature attitude.  Also, one of the first people to be at your door when you might need help some day.

All in all someone got a ticket for breaking a state law.  A warning would have been nice for sure, but you can't be upset if you break the law (knowingly or not) and get a ticket.

 

Simmer down Francine, It was a joke. Ever seen Smokey and the Bandit? Sorry it offended you and any LEO.  

[footndale]

On 2/27/2017 at 10:11 PM, Sixball said:

Michigan law requires USCG-approved PFDs for all pulling sports.

Which makes every barefooter and show team is  illegal. Interesting.

 

FYI, Florida says USCG flotation too, but footers don't.

[footndale]

On 2/27/2017 at 7:43 PM, hethj7 said:

Huh?  Most footers and boarders you know don't wear PFDs?  Or am I reading this wrong?

Yeah, I always equate PFD = USCG approved.  So know they don't.

[windy1]

Add Oklahoma to the no spotter required state but most of the yahoos don't have a clue about that law anyway.

[Woodski]

Not only are most if not all barefoot suits not USCG approved, there is a growing and large variety of wakeboard and waterski vests that are not USCG approved.  It seems that when you scroll by most popular on any website for vests, the non USCG approved ones top the list for all of the activities.  Customers are demanding via the wallet the more comfortable & more functional options available to participate in the sport of choice.

As for spotter laws, there is some verbiage that allows an approved driver (one that operates a ski school) to pull a skier in a sanctioned tournament, exposition, receiving training, or practicing for a tournament w/o a spotter if the boat is equipped with an approved mirror.  It also covers non USCG approved pfd's.   Here is the Michigan example, drafted back in 1994 but still on the books:   http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-324-80152

 

[Bill_AirJunky]

I don't see the law changing. Insurance companies will lobby against it hard. And let's face it, if a skier/rider gets hurt with only one person in the boat, he is as good as screwed.

One of the executives at Hyperlite crashed in the course on Sammamish. Broken neck. Took his wife several hours to get help to get him back in the boat & to a place the ambulance could meet them.

[footndale]

The bill failed by one vote last year.

[Sixball]

8 hours ago, Woodski said:

Not only are most if not all barefoot suits not USCG approved, there is a growing and large variety of wakeboard and waterski vests that are not USCG approved.  It seems that when you scroll by most popular on any website for vests, the non USCG approved ones top the list for all of the activities.  Customers are demanding via the wallet the more comfortable & more functional options available to participate in the sport of choice.

As for spotter laws, there is some verbiage that allows an approved driver (one that operates a ski school) to pull a skier in a sanctioned tournament, exposition, receiving training, or practicing for a tournament w/o a spotter if the boat is equipped with an approved mirror.  It also covers non USCG approved pfd's.   Here is the Michigan example, drafted back in 1994 but still on the books:   http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-324-80152

 

I tried the verbiage when we got nailed. The LEO knew the law. He asked if we were practicing for a tournament.  I was honest No. are you A  certified driver, No. guess what I got.    He did comment on a nice boat and asked if the registration was correct. He thought it was a new boat. Seven or eight years old at the time. 

Edited March 2, 2017 by Sixball