Issues with Course Permit - Anyone else heard of this

[mino]

The lake we live on in SE Michigan has a permit for a course. The permit holder got a call from the DNR the other day telling him that the course needs to be down when not in use. We had been leaving the course up Monday to Saturday morning and then dropping it before noon. Sounds like the permit holder was told the course can only be up if it is actively being used. Anyone else heard of this requirement?

[MISkier]

Oh yeah. I can tell you all about it. I think I have even posted an image of the permit conditions on here before. I'll try to locate it. What lake are you on?

[WIRiverRat]

While I am no longer in Michigan, I can tell you that in Wisconsin we had to get two permits. One for the structure under the water and one for the buoys to be above water if we wanted to keep them up. Maybe you need to look in to getting an additional waterways marker permit to keep them up if the DNR really comes down on you.

[MISkier]

Look for the thread "The disappearance of a slalom site". I post an image of the permit conditions. I believe the last line in that image mentions "while in actual use".

 

Let me know if you need other specific info or want some of the paperwork emailed to you.

 

Also, there is some discussion of this in a thread titled "Public water", where I compare the slalom course permitting with other activities that control the lake without a permit.

[epnault]

I was told by our DNR officer in WI that no permit is required for a temperorary course but it was not allowed to stay in over night. Only during legal daylight hours.

[6balls]

@epnault that is true in Wisconsin. We used to drop it at night but keep a marker ball on it and replace buoys in the morning for use when on vacation. Lots of work but hey, we were passionate youngsters!

[mino]

@MISkier - Thanks for the info. We are on Commerce Lake.

 

Read your post and it sounds like exactly what we have. Were you ever able to find a way around the requirement to drop the course every night?

 

Not sure, but it sounds like someone on another lake got busted by the DNR. They pointed out that no one else was dropping their course. This was the DNR's solution to that - increase enforcement.

[Triplett]

@mino I was told about this the other day by a fellow MWSA board member. It sounds like Michigan is starting to crack down on public courses. It was even said that MWSA supported the measure (which is untrue, why would we!). @MISkier is a wealth of information when it comes to the permits and probably the legal stuff when it comes to course.

 

Keep us posted.

[MISkier]

If you look at that thread with the image of the permit conditions, the first paragraph says that the DNR worked with MWSA to set up the guidelines. That is probably false. All they probably did was ask the size of a slalom course and that was the extent of the collaboration or concurrence by MWSA. Nobody that I know would have signed off on the current rules.

 

At the time that they revamped the permit process and conditions, you could leave a course installed all the time. Some of those were grandfathered for a while. Now, they are eliminating those.

 

The permit conditions have been this way for over a decade, as I received my first permit then.

 

I have not found any solution to the daily removal nor any negotiation of terms or secondary permits. The best solution, other than challenging the current law, is to use a Wally Sinker course or remove the buoys/sink the course. Note that letting a course sit on the bottom can cause it to fill with sand/silt/muck and make future removal and disassembly problematic. Taking the entire course in and out is not preferred, as you have discovered. Sinking the course is allowed and a good option, if you can easily find it, retrieve it, and reconnect the buoys.

[BrennanKMN]

That sucks that you have to sink a course when it is not in use. We have 2 public courses that we leave up all the time. We only sink them in the winter.

 

I have to say that if I had to float up a course and attach bouts each time I skied it would make it much harder to ski. It is truly depressing how much these various agencies are squashing this sport.

[Kelvin]

Its disappointing that the USAWaterski waterways committee isn't more involved in attempting to relax these requirements.

[klindy]

@Kelvin that's what a national organization needs to do to save/grow the sport. I've asked many times and neither USAWS or AWSA can even come up with a current list of installed courses or jumps or permits or even the laws (federal or state) which are currently in place regarding permitting an existing or new course.

[GWaterski]

Having built and installed 10 slalom courses in SW Michigan 25 - 30 years ago and working on as many permits, I can tell you times were good thanks to a record ranking skier working within the MI DNR. And if you skied tournaments, you could even get a 'No Observer' permit. Slalom ski enthusiasm was probably at it's all time high! He has since retired and his regulatory legacy as well, sadly. In my opinion, the increasing difficulty permitting courses - as described by @MISkier have resulted in the construction of a large majority of private MI ski sites - which have undoubtedly saved the sport to a large degree. MI has a fabulous tournament program running on specialty slalom lakes thanks to the skiers hooked on this sport back in the pro ski DNR era.

@klindy - I wholeheartedly agree with your comment - as well as appreciate all you have done for the sport.

This discussion is looking for a solution to come from within USAWS / AWSA to reach out and work with State regulatory agencies if they want to help this sport grow.

Skiers are doing whatever they can, that's for sure!

 

[klindy]

Thanks @GWaterski

[Jmoski]

In New Hampshire my ski buddies could only get a temporary use permit for certain days at certain hours, so it has to dropped in and then pulled every time.

 

Before they got the permit someone called the marine patrol on us and they made us pull it - so be thankful you don't need a permit for day use!

[MISkier]

@jmoski, we do need a permit for day use. In fact, those are essentially the conditions of the permit - day use only. You can't put a course in for one second without a permit here.

[Mastercraft81SnS]

Its a pain in the butt here in MI on a public lake to set up a ski course. Are course is right next to the party cove and it makes it hard to fine the course. It also is on the ruff side of the lake.

 

I have a question for @MISkier am I aloud to set up the course on my 14ft jon boat?

I have seen some privet lakes where they can leave the course in here in MI.

 

It's kind of funny how I always get pulled over in the ski boat, but not one time in my fishing boat.

 

 

[RAWSki]

We also got a call from DNR stating the same thing. Our course has been in place for over 20 years and we were told they have decided to crack down on all courses in SE Michigan. @MISkier do you know when the DNR changed the rules for courses up from Monday-Saturday Noon to "only up during actual use" ?? The DNR also added requirement of corner markers but that seems to be rarely enforced. I have to assume there were hearings on these changes? Or Not???

[bassfooter]

As with anything, follow the money. Fishing licenses are a huge source of income for the Michigan DNR. One fisherman is all it takes to be visited by the local Conservation Officer. When I got a permit for Gun Lake back in 1976 (holy crap I'm old), it was the same thing - daylight hours, orange-on-white corner markers, etc., but we kept it low-key and just kept it in during the week. Then one fisherman complained and they started enforcing the rules.

 

This same guy would anchor right in the middle of the course when we were using it legally, and our complaints fell on deaf ears - there was nothing we could do. Turns out he was a real nice guy, he just liked his fishing spot. He didn't even live on the lake.

 

As @GWaterski described, things got better in the Eighties, but by then I had moved to the west coast and only visited Gun Lake for a couple weeks each August.

 

Really sorry to hear it's getting worse.

[Mateo_Vargas]

@MISkier so with the way the permit is worded would one be required if the buoys were not anchored but GPS controlled to hold their position?

[jjackkrash]

It sucks hearing about all the headaches. Our course stays up 24-7 until we decide its time to sink it for the winter and pull the balls.

[Stoner]

@mino Yes yes and yes. We moved from a SW MI public lake because of permits and DNR, and a few other reasons (job, life, etc) Permit holder, according to local DNR badge holder, ONLY person allowed to use course. Kind of defeated the purpose for me since I was not the permit holder. I was able to speak with the DNR on my dock next to my boat. He claimed that as a badged officer he was allowed on all property in the state because birds could land anywhere. He asked why I had ski bouys in my boat- I told him that they were for fishing. He rolled his eyes and left. We had no reason to stay and moved. Good luck.

[MISkier]

@"Mateo Vargas", the anchoring of the buoys is not the issue. It is the fact that you are essentially "controlling the surface of the water" through the presence of the buoys. I believe you would still need a permit for GPS-positioned buoys.

 

@RAWSki, the hours of use terms in the permit were that way when I received my first permit in 2007. I don't know when they were actually changed. The application says that it is issued under the authority of PA 451 from 1994. So, sometime between 1994 and 2007 is when I would say the current terms were adopted. This seems to be the legislation that started it and it apparently left it open to the interpretation of the DNR as to what the permit conditions would be:

 

Buoy permit law

 

This is the marine safety portion of the law:

 

Marine safety law

 

One thing that is on the permit is this phrase:

 

"Upon the request of an applicant for a permit, and where reasonable, the District Law Supervisor may waive the restrictions enumerated above concerning the times and days during which a course may be used. As used in this provision, “reasonable” shall mean that based on factors such as very few riparian owners or historically low water use, no public interest is served by limiting the use of the course."

 

So, it does sound as though there is an avenue to adjust the terms of the permit. However, I would bet most District Law Supervisors won't budge unless you can show the course is in an area with next to no traffic or on a lake with no riparian owners, no public access, etc.

 

@Mastercraft81SnS, I'm not sure what your question is about, but I have installed and removed my course with a rowboat. I have a permit. You can use any boat you want, as long as you comply with the permit conditions.

 

 

 

[MISkier]

@Stoner, my permit has this phrase:

 

 

Seems to me that the permit holder is not the only person to be able to use the course. I was also always told that I could not restrict others from using the course while it was installed.

 

And, you are right, a DNR officer can walk onto your property at any time to look for wildlife situations or violations. Technically, they could show up at private ski sites and check boat safety equipment, life vests, and other marine safety items. It makes me wonder if they could potentially impose the slalom course conditions on a private site.

[Drago]

This is what @JeffSurdej and AWSA Should be working on.

[MISkier]

The slalom course rules are actually quite discriminatory. I offer these examples:

 

1. Duck hunters do not get permits for their decoys nor are there any requirements on when they can place them or when the must remove them.

2. There are no permits required for rafts or recreational floats (trampolines). Those are allowed to remain installed indefinitely, rather than removed each day. I would prefer to run over a slalom course buoy versus smashing into a swim raft. Most of these are some distance from shore to allow for deep water and diving.

3. Ice shanties do not require permits and do not have to be removed "when not in actual use". I bet these are just as much, if not more, of a navigation hazard to night snowmobilers as the slalom course is to night boaters. Probably more dangerous in a collision.

 

I'm sure I can find more examples.

 

If money is the issue, charge $100 for a slalom course permit that allows it to remain in continuously. Don't forget to charge that raft owner, trampoline owner, and ice fisherman the same fee. We can probably give the duck hunter a discount. He's probably not going to leave those decoys in for an extended period of time.

 

We need some lawyers to step up and challenge these rules.

[skierjp]

@Drago I live 15 minutes from AWSA and personally know people in the organization. I needed help a few years back on one of my slalom course permit issues and got absolutely NO help. Then they wonder why membership is down. One thing I can tell you is the DNR or other water agency has more power then other officers. They also don't fully understand all the rules. I proved them wrong a few times.

One thing we ALL have to remember, sometimes all it takes is ONE complaint from a fisherman and you have trouble. Just because you have a permit doesn't mean you can do or ski when you want. Florida actually has a law that says when the course is in use other boaters must stay 150' from the sides of the course and 600' from the end. Try enforcing that. The quickest way to start trouble is to ask a fishermen to move. If their cool when they troll by they will ask why you aren't skiing? This opens up the time for discussion.

I had 2 different issues where a Sheriff Deputy was called. The first Deputy just happened to have been a Cypress Gardens Waterskier when he was younger. The other time the Deputy new nothing about courses, I got 2 complete different responses to the explanation of the law.

[LeonL]

The comment that @klindy made stating that USAWS/AWSA can't come with the laws in various states concerning courses and or water skiing is disheartening. If they can't even come up the laws and advise a member on such laws, their claim to promote skiing is patently false. On another note, I have no knowledge of the laws concerning ski courses on the waters of KY. There are several on public water here though, and they are left in all season. The state fish and wildlife governs ALL and I mean all water in the state. They made that abundantly clear to me once. They can come on my property at any time they desire. They have wider ranging power than any other enforcement agency in the state. Their "probable cause" for coming on your property is that there are fish and wildlife there, as opposed to other law enforcement agencies that must show that they suspect a law is being broken.

[ToddL]

As discussed many times before: growth starts with awareness, visibility, and access. @MarcusBrown has been a strong proponent of making slalom visible on public water. He understands that. Further, it seems that the ability to support and fight for public slalom course rights is clearly aligned with AWSA's primary goal of growth.

 

An on-line summary of federal and state laws would be a helpful start. Something that course owners can easily reference when considering a new course or when confronted by an uninformed officer.

 

Maybe this is an opportunity for @Horton, if not able to be handled by AWSA ( @JeffSurdej ). Create a web database/application that simply allowed users to specify the country, state, city, lake and the permit summary, plus upload a PDF of the legal language, or links to published codes. Each record could also allow for a blog for comments for updates and discussion.

 

The way to get things going is to build a place to capture the information, then let each local skier provide their piece of the total puzzle of data. Once the puzzle is underway, we can look for trends of success and constraint. Winning arguments and proposals/methods can be employed elsewhere to move the needle in our direction.

[klindy]

@Drago I would only correct your comment by saying that these issues are something that I believe USAWS needs to be working on. Waterways access is a problem for any of the sport divisions not just AWSA. That said there sure should be something going on to make a difference. AWSA as a sport division however can certainly apply a lot of pressure on USAWS to develop the knowledge and expertise.

 

@MISkier your list of "examples" of other on water activities that don't need a permit is interesting. Not only can the hunter leave the decoys out, it's legal to actually hunt on a public lake in Michigan as long as you're 500' (pretty sure that's the distance) from a structure or other private property. Just be sure you have your hunting license.

 

Ice fishing huts don't need a permit and can be left on the ice but they do need to have a phone number clearly visible on the outside (in something like 2' high letters). And it must be off the lake before it melts thru the ice or the owner is liable for removal costs and fines (hence the number to contact the owner).

 

@stoner I'm pretty sure I know the DNR agent in SW Michigan you mentioned. I was involved in a case about 20 years ago where I got an education on the state of Michigan and federal game laws. We prevailed but it's quite interesting just how much autonomy a game warden actually has.

[ToddL]

Public course skiers just need to get hunting licenses and paint the buoys to look like ducks.

[Horton]

@ToddL awesome idea. I assign it to you. Get right on it.

[mino]

Thanks everyone for the info.

 

@MISkier , ironically all of the lake front owners recently got a letter regarding people allowing boats to be illegally moored on the lake. One of our neighbors contacted the township and the state and was told that there was not much that could be done about it. Interesting that there are docks at both ends of the course that are filled with boats. So the DNR would ignored the makeshift marinas while checking out our course that was in non-compliance.

 

I guess in the short-term we will need to get creative in ways for sinking and popping the course.

 

Too bad the DNR is busy worrying about our course and not the guys wake surfing within 10 ft of my dock.

[ToddL]

No problem, @Horton. Just give me server level access to your site, and I'll get right on it. (JK)

[Mateo_Vargas]

www.wsia.net Maybe use the Water Sports Industry Association. There is already a page with links to every states' boating laws. Remember seeing that they have successfully fought water sports bans on lakes. When MasterCraft sells a boat to a dealer they put $10 on the invoice to support the organization.

[MNshortliner]

This thread is like a horror movie

[DW]

This seems to be an excellent example of why the sport is challenged to even keep up let alone grow. Much easier to change sports rather than deal with additional labor / effort to chase buoys (on public water). Which then leads to elevating cost of entry due to needing a private site for access. Agree completely that the sports governing body should be an active participant in at least maintaining existing or grandfathered legislation and be a source for assistance.

[Stoner]

@MISkier the permit holder on our lake became so gunshy about even putting it in that they policed the area. No one was allowed to float one when theirs was not in and they would take it out when done.

 

Our lake had a bad problem of riperian owners "fencing" off bottomlands with markers that were not permitted. The love and brotherhood of lake owners 'devolved' into vandalism and fingerpointing.

 

As for decoys- I always liked skiing around my own goose decoys in the fall. Just don't misjudge the decoy height. Impact still left a mark wearing a 4 mil suit.

[skierjp]

Riparian mean nothing if under water. As long as there is water over land you actually have no right to what is under the water. My riparian rights go hundreds of feet out in the lake. Means nothing unless the lake dries up! At least that's my understanding.

[UWSkier]

We've discussed the duck decoy slalom course here for years for that very reason. However, they hurt if you hit them.

[Stoner]

@skierjp in MI as far as my legal understanding goes riperian rights by definition mean rights to the water frontage of the property. In MI there is a distinction of bottomlands and contiguous riperian owners. If you own water front you can attach a seasonal dock or swim platforms with no permit on one's bottomlands. In theory out to the middle of the lake. Bouys by definition are navigational in purpose and require a permit if anchored on bottomlands contiguous to private property. Thus, when you go to some inland lakes and boats are moored on bouys off a public beach they are legal because it is public bottomlands.

 

Clear as mud? Lawyers charged me a lot during my education.

 

Bottom line, as far as I can tell all bouys require permits just different kinds in the Peoples Republic of MIchigan.

[Mastercraft81SnS]

I think they need to put a sign up on lakes with ski courses saying what the random buoys are and why they are there. Last week end we where free skiing and there was 20 fishing boats in the ski course. I also find it annoying that sence I'm skiing I get pulled over every time the boat cop is on the lake he even will stop at are dock when we are done. A few years ago he tried to tell my dad you can't go skiing because people are fishing. You would think sence we pay to play for are sport that they would encourage lakes to have a course.

[Mateo_Vargas]

Maybe Kid Rock can fix it? A couple of my college buddies went to high school with him.

[keithh2oskier]

Maybe Goode can create a bubble decoy. Swerve around your favorite mallard and no pain if you hit it?

[Stoner]

@keithh2oskier that is a great idea. Why not make them hunter orange? If I still lived on the lake I would be tempted to draw a duck head on a standard orange bouy. Can't be a crime to be a bad bird hunter.

[Wish]

Wonder how involved the newly named USA Waterski & Wake Sport Foundarion will get involved in helping the public wakeboarders counter any actions against wake boats and shore erosion?

[Wish]

Boat guides and a potential decoy to be modeled after for turn balls less the tail.

 

 

 

[Ralph Lee]

@ToddL our course would be at the bottom of the river in 5 minutes if we tried that in our cove

[ToddL]

We need a Walley Skier Decoy Buoy.

[dave2ball]

@Stoner skierjp is correct for the most part.

If your lake is a sauverian which means state managed. That pretty much means that even though your property line goes into the water you as a property owner do not own or have a say so as to what can or can't be don't from the waterline to the bottom. If the lake is not state managed and you do own the bottom you as an owner can go to your neighbors and asks to use there portion of the bottom for a slalom course. This doesn't mean you won't need a permit but it might make it easer.

If you go to your property appraiser web site that maybe a good starting point.