|
|
Posts: 691
Location: nationwide | This is pasted from an article. Although the intent is good . . . .I am not so sure how this will work. Think of how far 100 feet is . . . and then think how often you are running on plane within that distance of shore.
Corey Meyer
Governor Doyle also signed Senate Bill 12, which establishes a slow-no-wake restriction for all motorboats that are not personal watercraft, when operating within 100 feet of the shoreline of all lakes. Previously, motorboats could not operate at greater than slow-no-wake speed within 100 feet of a dock, raft, or pier.
Wisconsin residents will benefit from the slow-no-wake buffer by providing protection for people using the near shore areas of our lakes, including children who swim and play near shore, and fishermen, kayakers, canoeists and others who use the waters near shore. This bill also reduces noise pollution in near shore areas.
Lakes in Wisconsin will benefit by protecting animals and plants that rely on the near shore areas. It will also reduce erosion of our shorelines. The bill goes into effect Spring 2010. Governor Doyle thanked Senators Jauch and Jim Holperin and Representatives Gary Sherman and Terese Berceau for their leadership.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 7083
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs |
Governor Doyle also signed Senate Bill 12, which establishes a slow-no-wake restriction for all motorboats that are not personal watercraft, when operating within 100 feet of the shoreline of all lakes. Previously, motorboats could not operate at greater than slow-no-wake speed within 100 feet of a dock, raft, or pier.
Wisconsin residents will benefit from the slow-no-wake buffer by providing protection for people using the near shore areas of our lakes, including children who swim and play near shore, and fishermen, kayakers, canoeists and others who use the waters near shore. This bill also reduces noise pollution in near shore areas.
Lakes in Wisconsin will benefit by protecting animals and plants that rely on the near shore areas. It will also reduce erosion of our shorelines. The bill goes into effect Spring 2010. Governor Doyle thanked Senators Jauch and Jim Holperin and Representatives Gary Sherman and Terese Berceau for their leadership.
Kind of sounds like a "no brainer" to me. But, I've got the timer running to see how long it takes for someone to blast this legislation here on site. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 691
Location: nationwide | Hey Slamr,
I would love to go off on a tirade about this new bill, and will be contacting the local wardens of the areas I fish to see how they plan on enforcing. Like I said the concept is good . . . . but the reality of complying and enforcing will be difficult.
Corey Meyer |
|
| |
|
Posts: 691
Location: nationwide | I see the term "lake" is used in the wording of the bill. Does this mean rivers and flowages are automatically exempt? And even though the Minocqua Chain is considered "lakes" they are held in place with a dam so does that make it a flowage?
Corey Meyer |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | I think the whole idea is to keep people from getting killed on the Wolf. If nothing was done it would just be a matter of time.
But there are some rivers and flowages up north where you'll have to idle a long way. |
|
| |
|
| //slow-no-wake restriction for all motorboats that are not personal watercraft, //
Does that mean jet skis can do whatever they want? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 706
Location: Richland Center, WI. | You took the words right out of my mouth Norm! Sounds like the jet skis are getting a free pass on this one.
Ken |
|
| |
|
| The bill is ridiculously STUPID. Another fine example of a key-holed point of view, drag-net type of law with few good applications and a thousand pointless ones.
"ALL motorboats; ALL lakes"??? Come on.... With the obvious exception of racing too fast by a dock or a beach, it is absolutlely pointless when you're out on a lake with an undeveloped shoreline, now isn't it???
Or what if you're traveling down a smaller creek channel that is between two lakes (Crane Creek on the Chippewa Flowage for example) that is less than 200 feet across---so you're ALWAYS within less than 100 feet of shore? Are you supposed to only go at no-wake?
Good luck enforcing this one DNR...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | Good intentions... but not able to be enforced at all. Waaaaay too many variables. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32926
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Guest,
Did you miss who wrote this legislation? It wasn't the DNR.
100' is only 1/3 of a football field. Most lakes this isn't an issue. It certainly will be on some rivers and in narrows between some systems. |
|
| |
|
| PWCs were exempted b/c they're already under a 200' SNW restriction from shore. All motor craft had a SNW restriction within 100' on ANY pier, raft, and boat before this anyways. What is the problem here? Many lakes already have the ring of SNW buoys or local ordinances restricting speed near shore (200' SNW for all watercraft in the Town of Presque Isle). |
|
| |
|
Posts: 258
Location: Mayville, WI | EDIT: A flowage is a lake, so it will apply. Also, it's kind of a let down how little some know the rules...
|
|
| |
|
| No...I didn't miss it. It's not a swipe at the DNR. More of a 'too bad fo them", because they will get the task of enforcing a dumb law. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 258
Location: Mayville, WI | DP
Edited by scmuskies 3/13/2010 9:59 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1295
Location: WI | I wish they'd just put up some No Wake bouys and enforce it on the lakes where it's a problem instead of making new laws that are impossible to enforce. Too much .gov everywhere you turn these days.
Edited by JKahler 3/14/2010 12:06 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 258
Location: Mayville, WI | Sure didn't hear any complaining when the PWC SNW rule was put into effect. It's not impossible to enforce, there are already tickets written for PWCs. I'm sure not every lake association or district would like buoys around "their" lake and I agree with that, they detract from the aesthetics, especially when on less developed or lake up-north lakes. Again, what is the problem with this? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | There's not necessarily a "problem" at all. I agree with Jkahler that there is way too much .gov these days. Laws cost money. Enforcing laws costs even more money. Legislature to write and pass these laws cost money. Seems to me that kind of money could be better spent elsewhere rather than attempting to write (and enforce) a law that will be practically impossible to enforce.  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32926
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | If a boater roars along the shoreline at 65 MPH and the Warden or Sheriff Patrol sees them, it's pretty simple to enforce. Enforcement is up the the folks with the badges, compliance when they are not around up to us. |
|
| |
|
| I think this law just might be a good thing. Its intention is obviously to provide some restrictions in an effort to make beach areas, developed shorelines and the like a little safer and more enjoyable. Unfortunately, a minority of people tend to make it necessary for all.
I think it's a safe bet to assume that law enforcement as a whole isn't going to be like a Barney Fife, giving out tickets just because they can when they weren't necessary. I’d expect them to be monitoring the above mentioned area, primarily.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32926
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Boating regs are enforced by police/sheriff water patrols...so it's not just wardens enforcing this particular law. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | These laws are not hard to enforce at all. Thinking so is naive. SC is on the money with how lame it is how little people know about the laws. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 149
| Some people are getting their undies in a bundle over this for nothing. 100' isn't far enough if you ask me. That's about 5 or 6 boat lengths, that's it. You really think 5 or 6 boat lengths from shore is TOO FAR to open up the throttle??? PWC's were not included because they already have a 200' slow no wake restriction. All motorized craft should have that same restriction.
I also think all lakes under 100 acres should be mandatory slow no wake at all times, rather than the current 50 acre restriction. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7083
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | PSYS - 3/14/2010 11:04 AM
There's not necessarily a "problem" at all. I agree with Jkahler that there is way too much .gov these days. Laws cost money. Enforcing laws costs even more money. Legislature to write and pass these laws cost money. Seems to me that kind of money could be better spent elsewhere rather than attempting to write (and enforce) a law that will be practically impossible to enforce.
(I am NOT attacking you directly here PSYS)
That is the thinking I knew would come in when saying this Bill was a bad thing. However, we're not against new laws/regulations when they're about:
-open/closed seasons on muskies.
-higher size limits on muskies.
-spearing regulations.
-etc. etc. etc. |
|
| |
|
| Seriously Muskie fishermen complaining about too many regulations/laws...there is no way they are typing that with a straight face...LOL..BR
Edited by BenR 3/15/2010 9:44 PM
|
|
| |
Wisconsin Senate Bill 12