Urgent Waterway Alert: Please Take Action

[Horton]

THIS ISSUE

There is a very real threat to towed watersports that urgently needs your help within the next 24-36 hours. One of the risks includes banning all towed watersports on lakes smaller than 1,500 acres. Another issue is depth requirements (20 feet minimum).

THE POTENTIAL IMPACT
This will significantly reduce the number of waterways we can waterski, wakesurf, wakeboard, foil, and tube on and will greatly harm local dealers, businesses, pro shops, coaches, manufacturers, and the entire watersports industry.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

Your voice counts and can make a significant difference.

Please contact your local legislature and voice your opinion. 

We encourage you to state that 200’ distance from shorelines is an appropriate distance for towed watersports activities without causing harm to docks and shorelines.

 To make it easy on you, we’ve drafted the template below. Please copy and paste the email below to send to your legislator or call and let them know where you stand.

FIND YOUR STATE LEGISLATOR: https://www.nasbla.org/about-nasbla/boating-contacts?utm_source=consumer_email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1208&utm_content=mastercraft

 

 

COPY AND PASTE THE BELOW

Dear ________,

As your constituent and an avid boater and water sports enthusiast, I unequivocally support towed watersports on waterways with an understanding that the boat should be 200’ from shoreline while towing any riders, skiers, surfers, etc.

Please support keeping our waterways open for our friends and family – it is a big part of our lifestyle and why we live where we do. I write to urge you to fight to keep our waterways accessible.

 

[Wiltok]

I received this direct from MasterCraft - but couldn't find a reference to a particular bill. Does anyone know the specifics? 

[MISkier]

I don’t like the 200’ part of that note.  In Michigan, the current allowable distance is 100’ from docks, rafts, marked areas (swimming), other boats, and developed shorelines.  It is 75’ from undeveloped shorelines.  

I don’t want to give anything away we already have.  It’s hard enough to get calm water now and there is less available if you can’t hug a shoreline somewhat.

Giving a little bit here and there (starting in 1994) got us to where we are with no wake times (ridiculous) and course permits (virtually impossible).

Change that 200’ back to what is already allowed before you send that note.

 

[LarryG]

And next dumb question ... is this ALERT for a particular state or at federal level?

[MDB1056]

@Horton - can you please back up and provide some essential background information? As already asked is this fire alarm due to certain states considering bills? Other? As your post cites specifics (1500, etc.) and the panic call to arms of 24-36 hours, there is something on a page somewhere.  I can't imagine this is some national initiative as these issues are all typically handled at the State levels. Before anyone is going to stat machine gunning form letters we need better information please.        

 

[BKistler]

@LarryG is correct. There’s not enough info to act on. A federal ban seems unlikely to me and a bill at the state level would affect only that particular state. NASBLA is legit. They were a good group when I rubbed shoulders with them back in the Stone Age. 

[Horton]

honestly guys, I really don't know the background. this was sent to me by the VP of marketing at mastercraft. When I asked if it was important. The response I got was a Hell Yes. apparently there's more going on the background that we are all unaware of.

there is more information if you follow the link in the original post

[MISkier]

@Horton, I didn’t see anything at that link other than contact names.

[tmothy07]

Gotta be something specific to a state or locality... I know there have been issues on specific lakes in Oregon about wakesurfing, but nothing down here in Texas (as far as I know). I'd like a bit more context before randomly emailing my representatives about something that's not even on their radar.

[MDB1056]

@Horton - then Krista should be providing solid background   

[Horton]

@MDB1056 Try this Stand Up for Boating Access - Boating United

[ProStah_Skiah]

Perhaps related to this new proposal in WI targeting wakesurfing? The proposed regulation matches the 1,500 acres cited in the OP.

www.jsonline.com/story/sports/outdoors/2023/12/09/stronger-wake-surfing-bill-offered-in-wisconsin-legislature/71855233007/?fbclid=IwAR1JpuBvmVNkyQKBx4lnPyNr3kkH1iRb0fuC2FZSWrJs3aSftMVGUl0fZwE#lq1aycbm3fyp9ly6xd

[MDB1056]

@Horton- this is just the NMMA website. Who we are, what we do, etc. I don’t see any CALL TO ACTION or URGENT topics, even under the News tab. There’s nothing here…….  

Suggest  closing this thread until something substantive is provided 

[6balls]

Fishy

[Horton]

@MDB1056

I'm just redistributing news that people I trust are telling me is important. Frankly, I don't completely understand it either. If you don't like it don't look at it.

[dvskier]

South Carolina passed a law requiring a 200 foot distance from docks for any power boats. One of my neighbors is the CEO of Friends of Lake Keowee  Society, his group plus several local legislators were instrumental in getting this pushed through. Our lake has been swarmed with tubers, wakeboaders, wake surfers in the past 10 years. It was getting dangerous as many of these new residents have 0 boating experience or etiquette. In any case our 18,500 acre lake is now more peaceful. When I built my home here in 2003 you could long line barefoot all day Saturday or Sunday.  Now not so much.

 

i believe the 200 foot law will be commonplace as time goes by and people are tired of having their docks and shoreline destroyed. I ski on private lakes exclusively now.

[MDB1056]

53 minutes ago, Horton said:

I'm just redistributing news that people I trust are telling me is important.

There is no news here.........

[lpskier]

25 years ago, I was swimming between our dock and our swim float with my children and their friends. The swim float was maybe 25’ off the dock and was a substantial 10x10 wooden structure. The dock was part of a 50x50 two story, three covered slip structure. There was nothing hard to see about any of it. A motor boat drove thru us between the dock and swim float.  It was literally a miracle no one was injured or killed. Moral of the story: You can’t fix stupid. 

[DW]

I received the letter from Mastercraft.  At the bottom of the letter is the following right below what John has posted:

Please support keeping our waterways open for our friends and family – it is a big part of our lifestyle and why we live where we do. I write to urge you to fight to keep our waterways accessible.

[DW]

Just my opinion although gleaned from reading various sources including the Mastercraft letter.  This initiative is driven by the wake surf industry, which Mastercraft is a significant supplier and arguably it's most profitable segment.  There has been a rather significant pushback on inland surfing with numerous municipalities initiating legislation / ordinances to curtail the sport due to damage / annoyance caused by the participants.  I suggest you peruse the boat forums to get a read on it, as the participant feedback is enlightening on how they perceive issues relative to their sport.

As for the verbiage presented by Mastercraft, that alone will significantly affect the ability to engage in what this forum enjoys, slalom skiing in states like Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin.  These states are peppered with small 100 - 200 acre lakes with shorelines that would simply eliminate the ability to ski, I live on one and have ski friends on several others.  Within a ten minute drive from my house I can count 20 ski boats on lakes that would be non skiable with a 200' rule.  Sure I can then go to the private ski lake I have access to, but if I truly want to see waterskiing flourish this is not a regulation that benefits the ski community.

To add to this, there was legislation proposed by a northern Michigan representative (a skier who wanted to ensure he still had the opportunity to ski) that would have limited the ability to ski.  He withdrew the legislation once it was pointed the bill was opposite of the desired effect.  Lesson - pay attention to what your representative is writing, he/she may not even know what is in the bill.

I hope the ski community stands up for itself, not just the private lake aspect but those on either a private or public waterway, and let's the surf industry fight their own battle.   Small wake ski boats are not part of the problem and they should not be restricted due to someone else's.

[Drago]

It does seem to end up slalom-detrimental 

[ALPJr]

Anything to do with 200k$, 7k# barges full of knuckleheads?

[ScottScott]

So it appears.....Mastercraft would like us to stand up for surfing, potentially at our own detriment.....  when in reality, many of us are effected negatively by surfing also. I don’t want to see Mastercraft lose business, but it wouldn’t hurt my feelings to see fewer surf boats on our lakes. Maybe this is a call to the waterski community to promote the differences between surfing and surf boats, and waterskiing.

[jpwhit]

This does seem like news that is relevant to the waterski community. Thanks for posting it @Horton

As someone that both wake surfs and slalom skies, I'm accepting of reasonable restrictions on wake surfing because so many people can't seem to be responsible on their own. And over the last few years, wake surfing is drawing enough negative attention that it's really only a matter of time before more and more restrictions get put into place. 

The reason this is very relevant to the 3-event skiing community, is because 98% of the population doesn't understand or even care about making any distinction between wake surfing and waterskiing. So waterskiing is likely to become a casualty in the process of trying to "fix" the wake surfing issue. So, the important point of action for the waterski community is to try and educate and ensure that waterskiing doesn't get included in future restrictions. And honestly, that's going to be really tough to accomplish. 

In general, I don't agree that you can create laws to very effectively limit people from being inconsiderate or stupid, but that's not really the practical consideration here. If our community's approach to protect waterskiing is to take the position that no restrictive rules should be put in place, then in my opinion we will fail, and waterskiing will likely be impacted as a result. Wake surfing is creating way too much ire in the overall lake communities to stop the trend towards restrictions being put in place.  I think MasterCraft is taking the approach to try limiting the restrictions in general, because that would be best for their business, but personally I don't think that's the best approach for the waterski community. 

For all the folks here, that jump on the bandwagon about how 3-event boats are the step child of the big surf boats, here's your chance to shine!

 

[6balls]

Every try to measure or enforce a certain footage?  If there are no buoys marking it--it's pretty gray.  

[Horton]

mastercraft made it clear to me that this is about boating in general and not about surf boats.

[MISkier]

Any letter I would write to a legislator would have an absolute distinction between any surf boat regulations and any ski boat regulations.  I'm not surrendering, or suggesting changes to, any current ski boat setbacks/clearances.

Edited December 12, 2023 by MISkier

[1skinut]

“We encourage you to state that 200’ distance from shorelines is an appropriate distance for towed watersports activities without causing harm to docks and shorelines.“

Water skiing and surfing cannot be lumped together as towed water sports or it will have a significant impact on water skiing. The quote above is not true for surf boats. They will cause damage at 200’. If the 200’ rule were applied to water skiing on the public lake I ski on (larger than the 1500 acre lakes in the proposal) it would eliminate most of my water ski days due to the water being too rough for my old joints.  It would also eliminate the use of the slalom course I ski on.   I don’t ski close to docks; but, I do ski less than 200’ from shoreline. 

[morfoot]

200' rule has already been passed in Georgia. Law went into effect this past July. haven't seen it truly enforced though. Many surfers just dont give a rats about anyone but themselves. Our course is up M-F in "Skier Cove" and I've had many a surf boat just come in and start Surfing it up even if a skier is in the course or getting ready for another pass. On the weekends you'll have 2-3 Surf boats in this cove which is why we drop Friday morning. They also apparently changed the law that a rider must have a CGA vest on. 100' rule for other watersports and Skiers only require floatation as Ski Belt's are still legal in GA..

Here's the Law:

Section 52-7-13.1 - Limitation on wakeboarding or wakesurfing

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this Code section, no person shall engage in wakesurfing or wakeboarding upon waters of this state:

(1) Between sunset and sunrise;

(2) Within 200 feet of any moored vessel; any wharf, dock, pier, piling, or bridge structure or abutment; or any shoreline adjacent to a full-time or part-time residence, public park, public beach, public swimming area, marina, restaurant, or other public use area; or

(3) When surfing a wake or being towed on a board, without wearing a personal flotation device.

(b) This Code section shall not apply to:

(1) A regatta, boat race, marine parade, tournament, or exhibition for which the commissioner has granted a marine event permit pursuant to Code Section 52-7-19; or

(2) Intracoastal waterways, rivers, or private lakes.

 

[swbca]

Random observations

Would this affect man made lakes in planned communities for water skiers ?

1500 acres is huge.   Christmas Lake in Minnesota is 265 acres, 1 mile long and 3/4 mile across at its widest point

200 feet is not a long distance from shore.   To be a good neighbors, we ski at over 300 feet from shore where there are  homes with docks.  If its too windy for 300 feet, that's our problem.

200 feet is way to close for wake boats.    If I were to drive a wake boat on our lake I would be at 500 feet.

 

[jpwhit]

1 hour ago, Horton said:

mastercraft made it clear to me that this is about boating in general and not about surf boats.

The way I would interpret that, is the way a majority of these rules are being drafted, that Mastercraft is correct. They will impact towed water sports in general. But I'm still a firm believer that the root cause driving the proposals is the fast growth of wake surfing. I'm seeing a lot of legislation being proposed in many states that is aimed at limiting wake surfing. But the way much of it is drafted, it'll apply to all towed water sports. 

If you accept the premise that wake surfing is what's driving the change. Then there are two ways to move forward on trying to fight against the change. Go along with all towed water sports are all essentially the same and attempt to resist any changes or limit them to something you think is workable. This seems to be the approach Mastercraft is adopting. And they think 200' is acceptable compromise. I can see why this would be the best approach for MasterCraft. But I'm not sure it's the best approach for tournament style slalom skiing since a 200 foot restriction would impact a lot of ski courses. Mastercraft may be betting that the rules are unlikely to be enforced in most slalom courses, and they may be right 90% of the time. But it will give the unhappy neighbor another way to get the slalom course they don't like removed on public water. 

The other way to try and protect slalom skiing, is to argue that it's very different than wake surfing. That's the approach that I'm advocating. I've seen some states write the rules to be specific to wake surfing. And that seems to be more often the case for states that have a lot of lakes and water sports. In states where that is not the case, the proposals tend to be a lot more general. 

[jpwhit]

I also wonder if there is potentially the beginning of legislation at the federal level and that's what prompted Mastercraft's email. And at the federal level, I can see proposed legislation easily being written very generically such that it applied to all towed water sports. 

[DW]

@Horton - I agree the problem will affect boating in general but I don’t agree it is not about surfing.  It is all about surf boats.

The boat wake / loud noise / obnoxious behavior issues (the items highlighted in the links) have come to the front in parallel with the surge in inland lake surfing.  

I can’t emphasize enough that a 200’ restriction will pretty much kill the Midwest small public lake water ski scene.   It would be very helpful to understand Mastercraft’s position relative to John’s feedback as to why they are not calling out the specific group responsible and lumping all of the water sports activities together.

[Rednucleus]

It may be about boating in general, but surfing is the root cause/problem.  Maybe boat manufacturers should get together and figure out a way to train their surfer customers - like a mandatory class/surfer card requirement, vs having the rest of the industry be punished.  There will always be those that don't give a darn, but I'll bet there are alot of ignorant surf barge owners out there that just need education.

[ScottScott]

The more I think about it, the more this approach angers me. Certainly, on the part of Mastercraft, and to an extent on the part of Horton for passing their ill-advised message on to us. Why be this vague? You can't tell us what we need to say, and who we need to say it to, and not tell us why we need to say it. Do they really think there's a snowball chance in hell I'm going to copy/ paste their message and send it to who they say to send it to without knowing why? When I know more about what’s going on I will likely contact my representative, but it most likely won’t be their letter as written.

[ScottScott]

I just went on google maps to look at 5 of the courses I frequent on public lakes near me. Course buoys are within 200 ft of the shoreline on 4 of them. 2 are uninhabited shorelines but the other 2 are 200' within residents’ docks, and this doesn't include drop area and run-in. I believe they are all permitted. How does the wording of this letter effect the existence of these courses? Especially when their existence is fragile as/is (even tho permitted.)

[jayski]

100% on manufactures...they should of had foresight and been on this 10 years ago when they started building barges

[swbca]

No one has told us what the legislative context for this is, but any blanket rules are going to cause damage to reasonable interests of many in the population of lakeshore owners . . .  and the population in general.  

There should be a provision in the law that allows for local variance-permitting for water skiing closer to shore on small lakes when the established population lives there to water ski.   Two Minnesota skiers bought land on a semi-rural lake and built "nice" homes and a submersible slalom course.  They have an agreement with the few other households on the lake that the  course will be positioned near the center of the lake creating about 300 feet of clearance from shore.  That may be written into the last version of the county issued permit.  

Other examples for local permitting as well for much smaller smaller lakes where the lake shore owners as a group enjoy a slalom course 80 feet from shore etc.

Allowing for local permitting for variance from draconian rules would be the reasonable thing to do.  The permits for exceptions could include a second set of standards for Wake Boats if necessary to serve the lakeshore owner population.

 

[MISkier]

I've already advised our State Water Ski Association of this issue to ensure our designated legislative contact is looped into any pending legislation and that we contact the appropriate lobbyist for assistance.  And, I have made my opinion on the matter clear that no ground (water) should be yielded, with respect to current ski boat setbacks/clearances.

[Hucklefin]

LRB 5069 proposal apparently, at least for WI. Has not been released yet, not surprised about any of this. Makes me nervous that skiing is associated with them despite wakesurf heavy language used in the proposal.

[Johnseed]

We had this issue on our lake and it peaked during COVID.  Our public lake is only 300 acres but watersports are allowed the only restriction WAS 23' length.  Surf boats began to take over and the local city government banned surfing for half the summer.  Problem solved.  Then the surf boat owners complained as they sunk a small fortune in their barges and could no longer use them.  A committee was formed and it even included a skier on this forum, so we had a voice in the process.  Fast forward a year later and the ban was made permanent but the slalom course is still going strong.  

Most of the property owners understood the massive differences in boats and wakes.  Our course is in a protected cove and the turn buoys are less than 100' from the shore easily.  The 200' number came up during the process as a minimum suggested distance to allow surfing if at all.  Thankfully in our situation all towed watersports were not simply lumped together.  Wakeboarding is even still allowed but without ballast or  use of wedges.  

Once in a while common sense still prevails.

[6balls]

All 4 of our frequently used public water courses when I lived in Litchfield would be violations for our quiet Nautiques and baby wakes with a 200 foot rule.  Our wakes are smaller than what a public lake sees coming ashore on a windy day.

Surf wakes...well.  It disturbs everyone but the people doing it and at a great distance.  It's shoreline, it's boats on boat lifts not that far up out of the water, it's docks with water crashing over them, it's people just trying to fish holding on to make sure they don't fall off the flat bass-boat they are fishing from.  

Any boat running by makes the same or larger wake than a slalom boat---but if not towing they don't have to be 200 ft?  Hell a surf boat not towing under these rules could be closer than 200 feet throwing a big wake at a slow speed and not be violating anything.

Not well thought out, hard to enforce, unfortunate

 

[jcamp]

I am a proud MasterCraft owner, but I would expect a much more sophisticated effort from both MasterCraft and NASBLA. If it's federal legislation you wouldn't contact your state legislators, and if it's state legislation it makes no sense for people in 49 other states to contact their state reps.  

And then there is the fact that MasterCraft is asking slalom skiers in many states to give up 50' (my course is permitted in a state with a 150' limit) in order to protect the cash cow surf boats. 

[Wish]

Bills will probably center around the term “inboards” as descriptive language to ID boat type(s) being restricted. That’s why any restrictions on jetskis is dangerous for us as well. 
 

Personal watercrafts are defined as Class A inboard boats by the U.S. Coast Guard 

[Slalom.Steve]

Ugh, as if it wasn't enough for the f***ing surf barges to ruin the water, now they have to ruin the laws too. JUST BAN WAKESURFING - simple answer, actually addresses the problem, best solution.

Edited December 13, 2023 by Slalom.Steve

[swbca]

Agreeing with many other posts on this thread . . . .
The MasterCraft person that sent this out should get his act together.  He makes the MasterCraft company look bad.  You can't fix this problem with a call to action that has no relevant direction.  To appose this action you should know which regulatory or legislative entity is actually considering this.

The proposed restrictions are absurd . . . .
Did anyone mention property values and ultimately property tax revenues ?   The 1500 acre restriction would exclude more than half of the lakes in Minnesota.

Green New Deal . . . 
This sounds exactly like something that would come out of Washington to further their current fossil fuel policies.  Get rid of all gas powered cars and as many gas powered boats as possible.   This is not a joke.  You couldn't water ski if your lake is smaller than 2.5 miles long and a 1 mile wide.

Bad for families . . .
Many baby boomers invest in fun things to do so the their kids and grand kids will hang around on weekends for family fun.  On on our shoreline its the boats.  It wouldn't be the same if no one could pull their kids behind the boats

Edited December 14, 2023 by swbca

[Wiltok]

On 12/12/2023 at 3:39 PM, Hucklefin said:

LRB 5069 proposal apparently, at least for WI. Has not been released yet, not surprised about any of this. Makes me nervous that skiing is associated with them despite wakesurf heavy language used in the proposal.

I 'smelled a rat' when I received the email from MC. It was too broad, too general with the call to arms. I reviewed the Wisconsin legislation, and while I am not a fan of restrictions, my ProStar is not affected and this bill would actually benefit me as a skier (I don't live in Wisc btw). 

[ETskier]

This is crap. Back in the day AWSA had programs and information which helped us protect water ski waterway rights. Now, with USAWS we are lumped in with wakeboarding and wakesurfing, tubing, etc, and we are losing ground. Our association with the USOC has screwed us. 

[ETskier]

Addendum,  the boat companies, have sold us pure water skiers out for the big dollars. Now, they want our help. BS.

[Horton]

4 minutes ago, ETskier said:

Addendum,  the boat companies, have sold us pure water skiers out for the big dollars. Now, they want our help. BS.