Spotter laws and how to change them

[TallSkinnyGuy]

I just read on the Mastercraft team talk forum about an attempt to change the spotter law in Wisconsin. Here is the beginning of the first paragraph of the original post:

 

(start)

Wisconsin currently requires a "competent person" as a third for all tow sport activities. I know I'm not the only one who has had this law keep my boat out of the water on one of the good weather days in our short season. Thankfully, both the State Senate and Assembly have bills to amend the current law to allow for a wide view mirror exception to the competent person requirement. I've linked both Senate Bill 180 and Assembly Bill 256 below.

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2015/proposals/sb180

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2015/proposals/ab256

(end)

 

I realize that many on this BOS forum only ski in private ponds and don't care about these laws, but for those of us who ski on public waters, a law change like this would be huge and beneficial to the sport of waterskiing. Wisconsin's spotter law is already more lenient than our law in California, which requires the spotter to be at least 12 years of age. I know many of my skiing friends who could ski a lot more if we didn't always have to find a third.

 

Has anyone on this forum gone through this process before (i.e. getting a spotter law changed) or have knowledge of it happening in your state? I would love to get some advice as to how to pursue this in California.

 

[Ed_Obermeier]

No spotter required in Kansas as long as the mirror is 72 square inches or larger in size, most ski boat mirrors meet that requirement already. Unless I'm mistaken I think it's same thing for Missouri.

[swc5150]

The guy leading the way in WI is a good friend of mine. He'd be happy to help others as well.

[TallSkinnyGuy]

Yes, I know there are a number of states that do not require a spotter. Must be nice. Our public lake is too busy to get good water in the summer months except for on weekday mornings. I work from home and have a flexible schedule, but in California I have to find two additional people (one adult and one at least 12 years old) who can also go weekday mornings. I've missed many a good ski day because I couldn't find two people to go with me. If I only needed one additional person instead of two I would definitely be able to ski more. I'm now inspired by others who have gotten such laws changed in other states.

 

For those who have been a part of changing such laws, did you experience resistance regarding safety and did you therefore have to present boating accident stats from other states?

[oldjeep]

MN (birthplace of waterskiing) is already awesome ;) No spotter with a mirror and can ski 1 hour past sunset. Luckily my folks lake in WI has no LEO presence since we ski there with only a driver frequently.

[Ed_Obermeier]

We're public lake skiers too. We're on the water by 7 AM Saturday mornings, often earlier than that (frequently at daylight mid season), cause that 's what we have to work with if we want to do any skiing. Our issue here is as much wind as Wallys (plenty of both), by 9 or so the wind comes up and we're screwed, traffic starts about 10. Early bird gets the good water. Not much help with the spotter situation I know, just an observation.

[bassfooter]

@TallSkinnyGuy I am very interested in seeing this happen in California. In a rare display of legislative clarity, they've relaxed the life jacket requirements for tournament, course, exhibition and barefoot skiing. Someone in Sacramento was thinking straight, at least in that case. Note that Utah's law only applies when using a course. I think we'd have a shot at something like that for California. How many courses do we have on public waters? I know of three: Mission Bay, San Vicente (when it reopens) and Nacimiento. I'm sure there are more up north.

 

Realistically, I cannot imagine we'd get anywhere trying to relax the law on the open water, i.e., outside a course or tournament event. Public waterways in California are already jam-packed, booze-fueled bloodbaths, which might at least partially explain the proliferation of private slalom lakes. And we're a litigious bunch, too.

 

Sacramento is right in the middle of several primo tournament sites and clubs -- maybe someone knows a legislator who skis? @Horton? @eleeski?

 

[TallSkinnyGuy]

@bassfooter There are some courses on the Delta and there are a number of private community lakes that enforce state regulations. I have a friend on one of those lakes who will never agree to go without a spotter because the local enforcers are so diligent and watchful.

 

If we could find a legislator who is sympathetic and willing to sponsor such a bill I would want to first shoot for changes that don't require you to be in a course like in Utah. All the other states I've been able to get info about so far don't have this stipulation. Plan B could be to set Utah-like limitations. I found it interesting that the Utah rule is only for their state parks. I know California state parks have their own set of rules that are not exactly the same as other California waterways. Since most California lakes are not state parks we would need to shoot for general California legislation rather than CA state park legislation.

[Skislalom]

For me a spotter is not only there to let the driver know you have fallen off but also if an Emergency arises and the driver needs help to get an injured skier back into the boat.

[TallSkinnyGuy]

@Skislalom I agree that it is safer to have a spotter and it usually makes skiing more fun for me if there are three of us. But the risk that you described is extremely small. Texting while driving is high risk and there should be a law against it. Driving a skier without a spotter but with a wide field of vision mirror is very low risk and does not deserve a law against it, in my opinion.

[fox197]

In Aus it is law to have a spotter in all states. And I'm of the opinion it should stay that way. Don't forget that on public water it only takes one dickhead to make a stupid move and you may have to avoid it. In a slalom course I can understand no spotter but not for free skiing.

[Fast351]

It all depends. Minnesota is one of the few states that does not have a spotter law. It's really nice to just need two people to go skiing (which is the way I usually ski).

 

On the other hand, when the lake is busy, which is really a lousy time to ski anyway, I wouldn't ski/wakeboard/surf/foil without a spotter. But that's my personal responsibility.

 

In general I don't think people serious about towed sports are the problem. At least around here, it's the dad with the kid on the tube, that despite having two other people on board, is looking at the tuber and not the water in front of him.

 

Our county actually has a little known local ordinance requiring a spotter when "the lake is busy". A very nebulous regulation. I'd just as soon that the government stayed out of it altogether.

 

[TallSkinnyGuy]

@Fast351 You make a good point. When the lake is busy I definitely want a spotter so I can focus all my driving attention on the path and other boats in front of me. And I for sure would never want to drive a tube (or see anyone else driving a tube) on a busy day without a spotter.

[swc5150]

From my perspective, spotter laws pretty much just apply to skiers. After all, have you ever seen a wake boarder, surfer or tuber without 10 people dancing around in the tow barge? To me, that's way more dangerous than a single, attentive slalom driver.

[sb_dc_mbs_13]

That's the problem I see with eliminating spotter laws. I trust hardcore skiers to be responsible without a spotter. However, I don't trust a majority of the clowns I see on our public lake to go without a spotter. For that safety reason alone, I think I'm partial to keeping the spotter law in place.

 

Where in Wisconsin are you guys? I spend my summers in Southeast Wisconsin on a public lake near the WI/IL border. Would love to find some courses in the area.

[swc5150]

We're up in Eau Claire. There are a few course lakes down in SE WI I'm aware of, but have never been to them.

 

I see your point with the clowns on public water. Just from my experience, it seems the clowns already have a boat full of people.

[TallSkinnyGuy]

If you're a "clown" as described earlier you are unlikely to be out on the lake with just a driver and a "towee." Seems to me that 99.9% of people who would want to be on the lake with only two people are taking their sport seriously.

 

Regardless, I hope this thread doesn't turn into a debate about the value of spotter laws. The purpose of the thread is to get advice on how to change the law like is currently being done with the Wisconsin boat mirror law. Any comments to that end would be appreciated.

[oldjeep]

FWIW in MN the law has some specific language regarding jetskis that pretty much disallows them from spotter less towing - never seen or heard of a factory wide angle mirror on a jetski.

 

While towing a person on water skis or other device, must have an additional per-son on board to act as observer. Wide-angle rearview mirrors may be substituted for an observer but they must be factory-installed or specified by the PWC manufacturer.

 

[vtjc]

The Green Mountain Waterskiers http://www.greenmountainwaterskiers.com/ in Vermont worked hard for years change our observer law and were successful in 2006. Changes shown: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/legdoc.cfm?URL=/docs/2006/acts/ACT196.HTM

Current Water Sports Statutes:

“…An observer shall not be required if the vessel is:

(1)  a tow boat approved by the American Water Ski Association and equipped with a wide-angle mirror having a viewing surface of at least 48 square inches;

(2)  being operated by a person who is at least 18 years of age; and

(3)  being operated within an American Water Ski Association regulation slalom course. …”

http://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/23/029/03315

When we were in the state house committee room providing testimony in mid-February we joked it was proof of how hard it can be to get a third to join for a ski sometimes. Good luck!

 

We all have a copy of the law in the glovebox of boats to educate law enforcement and other lake users when confronted.

 

[Lars]

An interesting read, I didn't realize how lucky we are in MN, I thought our laws were the norm.

 

I sent an email as suggested in the team talk post.

 

As far as getting similar changes elsewhere, If this law passes, someone could cite the recent changes in WI, VT, and UT as precedent for changes in other states.

 

[PatM]

@vtjc Bruce Epstein was instrumental in getting that done. Smart guy, Vermonters are lucky to have him.

[Nando]

The Wisconsin law used to read that a "qualified spotter" was required. Near Siren, a guy was pulling his kid through the course with only his yellow lab as a spotter. The water partrol pulled him over to issue a citation. He had a copy of the statute and told the water patrol that the dog would bark whenever the skier fell. The guy anchored his boat and rode along. When the kid fell, the dog barked and he got off without being cited, but was told the law would be changed to define a spotter as . The "competent person" language was added shortly afterward.

[Drago]

There should be an international rear-view-mirror-required-in-your-boat-on-public-water law. Spotter? When I ski in October at lake Powell it seems silly, but less so in August.

We used to have a spotter rule at a private ski school on a city park lake. Early morning spotters were sweat pants, propped up vest wearing a hat on his buoy-head.

Man the park cop used to get so mad. The Good Ol Days

[Bill22]

In Virginia if you have a mirror you don't need a spotter. If we had a spotter law it would take away 1/2 of my skiing time!

[Edbrazil]

On the other side of the coin: in NH, if you are pulling doubles, you used to need TWO observers.

At a most recent look, that requirement is gone. Still can't pull more than 2 skiers without a permit.

[MichaelGoodman]

@Edbrazil I think NH just got rid of the spotter requirement

if skiing in the course.