New Boating rules.

[jester]

Hi Everyone,

I think I need to post this because it is something that was passed in Oregon after a majority of the people at the previous public hearing where not for it (about a 10 to 1). Because Oregon has passed this it opens the door for other states to do the same. The boaters in Oregon are still working to fight it before it goes into effect. It is saying that by 2010 we will not be able to use any “Wake-enhancing devices” on a part of the Willamette River. The part of the River that is talked about goes thru Portland which is the biggest city in Oregon. This opens up other water ways in Oregon and other states to have the same rules applied to them. Below is the new rules.


This was taken from the Oregon State Marine Board site http://www.boatoregon.com/OSMB/BoatL...sedRules.shtml

Rule Adopted for the Lower Willamette River
On October 14, 2008 the Marine Board adopted the staff recommendation which proposed the following:

"Based on the large body of public comment as well as direction from the Governor's office and the Department of State Lands, staff recommended that the Board adopt the following amendments to OAR 250-020-0032 and 250-020-0385 to be in effect on January 1, 2009":

On the Willamette River from the Hwy 219 Bridge at RM 48.5 to the upper end of Willow Island at RM 31.5, the following rules apply:
(a) No person shall operate a motorboat at a speed in excess of a "Slow-No-Wake" maximum 5 mph speed within 100 feet of private docks, boathouses or moorages legally permitted by the Oregon Department of State Lands.
(b) No person shall use 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.

After allowing brief comments from meeting attendees, the Board discussed the proposed rules and the staff recommendation. Board Member Trey Carskadon recommended an amendment to the staff recommendation timeline for item (b), to take effect January 1, 2010. The Board voted with three members in support of the revised staff recommendation and one member opposed.

SUMMARY: Beginning January 1, 2009 (a) No person shall operate a motorboat at a speed in excess of a "Slow-No-Wake" maximum 5 mph speed within 100 feet of private docks, boathouses or moorages legally permitted by the Oregon Department of State Lands.
Beginning January 1, 2010 (b) No person shall use 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.

[RobertJ]

I see a couple of flaws. One is that is says "ballast tanks" our Moomba's use ballast bags/sacs. The other flaw is the intent to keep boats from artificially operating bow high. If we weigh our boats in the front and keep the bow down we should be okay, regardless of wake size.

If these flaws don't work I could always use my giant costco cooler loaded with 300 cans of soda for ballast.

Sure makes the new ballast system seem cool. See flashers hit switch and dump.

[04OUTBACK]

yeah,
I like B.. no "un-even loading of persons or gear, to artificially operate bow-high. "
I don't know about ya'll, but my Mobius porpoises when it is stern heavy..
matter of fact, working on a bow ballast system to put more up front!

So, if I meet the USCG rating for my boat for max people, AND, the are evenly distributed, I can wakeboard?.... Typical bureacracy..

Robert...just hope you get them dumped before the Boat 5 0 gets to ya! ha..

actually, it would be better to have hidden tanks with the reversable pump in this situation!
Interesting they did word the wedges, hydrofoils or other mechanical devices.

SO.. a wake plate is illegal.. but is a fishing boat with Trim tabs illegal??

[JesseC]

Just to be on the safe side, I am going to put an article in the classifides that offers free boat rides to anyone that is over 250 lbs. I will supply them with free lunch and beer. Lets seem them write an ammendment to shut that one down. We can claim discrimination for our larger than life friends.

[jmvotto]

well put Jesse, my father-in-law is 6'8 and 300+ i would like them to tell him where to sit. LOL

[BensonWdby]

The real issues with these laws are enforcement. The only way to tag someone for being within 100 feet is to measure them. Since the boat is only at that location a very short period of time, how could they. It would be like a state trooper going to court and saying ' Well no I did not get him on radar, but he looked like he was going 5 mph over the limit.'

And bow high? how high is bow high? Is it a percentage of the boat out of the water? Or is it the height of the bow above the water? Or is it the height of the bow relative to the stern? Whose going to measure it and how?

These laws are unenforceable - or at least unlikely to hold up in court.

[kaneboats]

These laws are unenforceable - or at least unlikely to hold up in court.

The problem is that you have to take the time to go challenge them after you are issued the citation. Many folks won't do it. Eventually it is just the law. It needs to be repealed immediately.

[cab13367]

Jester,

This is not good, not good at all. That is the exact stretch of river that I wakeboard and surf. There is a lot of talk on pdxwake.com about it. Lots of angry boarders as you can imagine.

Al

[JesseC]

I can see where both sides of this issue need to be addressed. First off I always try to wakeboard and wake surf where I am the least annoying to the home owners on the lake. Most people do not want to see a fully loaded wake boat buzz their dock with music blaring. Do not get me wrong, I am definitely one of the 1000 watt plus, 1300 lbs plus ballast wake boats. I always make sure that if I am loaded up and blaring, I am on a part of the lake where there are very few houses. If I am wake surfing, I aim the large wake away from houses towards the shore where there are no docks. I try to stay as far away from the shores as possible. It is simply a curtsey to the home owners.

No to go on the other side of the fence. At my parents lake house there is a jack leg that buzzes our dock at about 11 mph EVERY weekend with his tunes playing and boat loaded down really heavy. He also buzzes us with wakeboarders with a massive wake behind his 24’ fully loaded wake boat. It has caused damage to our sea wall and my parent’s pontoon boat hitting the frikin roof of the boat house!!! Not to mention multiple gouges to my rub rail from being slammed against the dock. In the end it is people like this that cause laws like these to be written. I do agree that it is an open door to further hurt our sport, but this problem has already cost us a couple thousand over the years from repairs from people that should have their boating licenses revoked. I would love to see this guy get what he deserves! We have asked him multiple times to please pass our place further out in the lake, but he still buzzes our place EVERY weekend.

[cab13367]

Jesse,

Understood, and I always respect other people's boat docks and such whenever possible. But this stretch of river is only 200' wide. I always go right down the middle and stay on the upriver part of this stretch because there are fewer houses/boat docks on it. But if you meet another boat coming the other way, both boats have to give room so enivitably, we end up closer to shore that we would otherwise.

So in my opinion, if you build a house on this public waterway, you have to accept that it's used for watersports and the waves crashing on the shore are part of the deal. People have been using this river for watersports long before the houses and boat docks were there.

It's like I wrote on the pdxwake site - if you build a house right beside a freeway that's been there forever, would you expect everyone to suddenly start driving 20 MPH because it's too noisy in your living room?

The thing that really irks the wakeboaters is that they held several public hearings on this issue and the wakeboat community came out in force, including several who own a house on the river and keep their wakeboat there who were opposed to the restrictions. Placing WED restrictions was opposed by those present by a margin of 10 to 1. But in the end, a four member OSMB committe (Oregon State Marine Board) voted to implement the restrictions by a 3 to 1 vote. That's just wrong.

Al