Urgent Waterway Alert: Please Take Action

[S1Pitts]

Surf boats ignoring the high water protocol, (that has been in place for decades), on our lake in the spring (NO WAKE SPORTS) are leading to a total boat ban during high water periods. Skiers were allowed to ski during high water periods so long as they idled out ,traveled down the center of the lake, and used dedicated ski boats.

Yes we are being penalized and lumped into one.  It's bad enough we have to deal with them during the summer/fall months but now we skiers are losing the spring skiing too. 

 

[Horton]

 

https://madison.com/opinion/letters/wake-surfing-lakes/article_f7cde23e-984f-11ee-893e-db86833ff98b.html

[Horton]

https://www.wxpr.org/outdoors-leisure-and-sports/2023-11-06/wake-surf-legislation-introduced-in-wisconsin-brings-boat-debate-to-a-head

[tjs1295]

@Horton Yep, interesting stuff going on. The bill both of those articles refer to is the one that was probably written by the boat manufacturers. It’s a joke, and the locals in Vilas county let the sponsors know it at the public meeting.  Not allowed on lakes less than 50 acres? Come on! The highlighted part is what makes the bill a real joke, and isn’t mentioned in either article. This is why the other representative wrote the other more restrictive bill. 

 

[tjs1295]

I don’t care that much about regulating these boats around me. I think there are bigger issues. The boats are only around for about 10 weeks anyway. But people are upset, and want them regulated. At least the article mentions the question the Wisconsin Conservation Congress submitted where 65% of the respondents are in favor of pretty aggressive regulations. That can’t be good for the surfing industry or participants. 

 

[tjs1295]

A new twist on this topic. https://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/outdoors/2024/01/27/wisconsin-residents-back-wake-boat-home-lake-rule-limit-invasive-species-spread-like-vermont/72367056007/

[DW]

A conclusion I would draw, the issue is not going away, looks as if one approach fails a different one will be used.  As a member of the much smaller waterski community and hoping the sport does not get swept away via restrictions due to a different sport, staying aware and educating (if that is even remotely possible) the legislators is extremely important.

[aupatking]

@S1Pitts is seeing exactly what I fear will happen all over the place. If surf/wake boats get banned, the companies will still sell ski boats. Likely a lot more ski boats. if they all get banned...

Edit: they may not be able to survive on ski boats alone

[VONMAN]

Well surf boats just got bigger. Regal has 38 foot surf boat! Coming to a lake near you. (public). https://www.regalboats.com/model/38-surf/

[tjs1295]

I love it!! Can't blame the manufacturers. They're just giving the people what they want, and making a bunch of money along the way. It's a win-win...... for most people, just not for water skiers.

[swbca]

@tjs1295 it also not a win-win for property owners or wild life.

In Northern Minnesota, the loon habitat is being destroyed because they nest close to water  level.  Loons are the Minnesota state bird.  On our lake the wakes are sometimes washing over the top of the stone walls built around the shore to prevent erosion.  Wake boats should be highly restricted in some fashion to protect habitat and lake shore property.  How can this be done ? the obvious challenge.

 

Edited February 22 by swbca

[tjs1295]

@swbca I'm not sure what can be done either, but I guarantee nothing will be done proactively. I've also been saying for a while that it's all fun and games until people start F'ing with the loons. The gloves are going to come off once you start doing that.😀

[buechsr]

1 hour ago, VONMAN said:

Well surf boats just got bigger. Regal has 38 foot surf boat! Coming to a lake near you. (public). https://www.regalboats.com/model/38-surf/

It’s 20,000 #s and has a 12 foot beam.  That isn’t a trailer boat.  No need to worry.

That said, a berth, toilet, grill, sea keeper, and 4 up console?!  Freakin awesome!

[swbca]

The "Minimum Wake" signs work when we enter the narrow channels connecting bays on our lake.

Imagine if we could put up 16" Maximum Wake signs everywhere.  If our Lake Association took a vote for that I think it would pass.  It wouldn't be legally enforceable but community pressure would have a big impact. 

[VONMAN]

@buechsr Yes, I used to think that until I saw this on Lake Bowers a 150 acre lake max. Some how this boat was on this lake.

[swbca]

Just now, VONMAN said:

@buechsr Yes, I used to think that until I saw this on Lake Bowers a 150 acre lake max. Some how this boat was on this lake.

Looks like someone found a solution to reduce the wake of this beast.  Those little plugs on the bottom of the boat are only finger tight. 

[buechsr]

19 minutes ago, VONMAN said:

@buechsr Yes, I used to think that until I saw this on Lake Bowers a 150 acre lake max. Some how this boat was on this lake.

I’m not saying that Regal can’t be moved upon roads, only that a 20,000# boat isn’t really a “trailer boat” likely to show up on most inland lakes.  

 

[MISkier]

This was just sent to me.  I hope the target is truly surf boats and not regular ski boats.

 

[tjs1295]

@MISkier Very interesting. It's clearly aimed at wake surfing boats, but who knows what the end result will be. It also seems obvious that war has been declared on these boats by states with a lot of smaller lakes in them. Has there been any response from the manufacturers besides something like the letter that started this thread? 

[Drago]

2 hours ago, tjs1295 said:

but who knows what the end result will be

Looks like the ultimate, well-thought, best solution to me. Why add this?

[DW]

Be careful what you ask for, it sounds great on the surface - but - please give a clear definition of what exactly ‘wake sport mode’ means.  
I could see it stretching from nebulous with no enforcement to clamping down on the whole swath of water sports.

[tjs1295]

@Drago  I’m not following what you’re saying about my post. I like the Michigan house bill. Just afraid it might do what @DW is saying. 

[swbca]

"Wake Sport Mode" is likely to be misunderstood by Wake Boat operators.  They may think going 16 mph at 200 feet from shore is fine as long as the aren't using ballast or similar wake enhancements.  

Hopefully ski boat owners wouldn't 16mph with three people in the back seat at 200 feet from shore which makes a wake that could easily be considered a Wake Sport wake.

The law should have a clear definition of what it means.

[unksskis]

Wake Sport is most likely anything involving someone behind the boat “utilizing” the wake with no separation or specification to what that may be.  That’s going definitely impact any towed water sport. 

[Jody_Seal]

when this MI law goes into effect, it will come down to enforcement as to how they interpret the law. on one lake the local enforcement may understand the difference between a tanker and a ski boat. 20 min down the road on another lake enforcement will equate the tanker and the ski boat as under the same law.....

[2Valve]

15 hours ago, MISkier said:

This was just sent to me.  I hope the target is truly surf boats and not regular ski boats.

 

Wake Sport Mode?

I'm on a private lake in MI and we've had two votes in recent years about limiting Wake/Surf boats. It's failed both times since the Association board uses similar, nefarious meanings and shore limits (as Rep. Julie Rogers).

At the last meeting, one resident pointed out that assigning a certain distance from shore doesn't change the wave energy reaching the shoreline. It just takes a bit longer from 500 feet compared to 150.

I get up early in the morning for smooth water, but I realize that we all share the same water on our All Sports Lake and there are other avenues to make everyone happy.

[MISkier]

@2Valve, I agree that the definition of "wake sport mode" in the bill will be critical.  It will need to specify something like "an enhanced wake for wake surfing or wake boarding activities" and exclude wakes and wake heights usually associated with water skiing or (takes deep breath and exhales) tubing.

I'm not sure I agree with your lake neighbor that a wave retains its full magnitude over distance across the lake.  I believe (without actual measurement data) that it will dissipate and lose some energy as distance increases.  

Edited February 29 by MISkier

[RAWSki]

@MISkier if a lake is only 16' at it's center/deepest spot does it make the bill not enforceable ? 😉

[swbca]

@Drago you have a lot of thumbs down.  Perhaps explain . . it appears you are against having a law that includes a definition of "Wake Sport Mode"   The Michigan law looks good but enforcement and citizen complaints may come from confusion about the phrase. 

[buechsr]

1 hour ago, 2Valve said:

 

At the last meeting, one resident pointed out that assigning a certain distance from shore doesn't change the wave energy reaching the shoreline. It just takes a bit longer from 500 feet compared to 150.

 

Uh, that is not close to being accurate.  Do wakes travel, sure.  But they are muted significantly over distance.  Is a cruise ship wake showing up on the gulf of mexico shores?  No.  Are 5 foot surf boat waves showing up at docks?  Not unless they're fairly close.  

[chrislandy]

1 hour ago, RAWSki said:

@MISkier if a lake is only 16' at it's center/deepest spot does it make the bill not enforceable ? 😉

my reading says that on a lake less than 20ft deep, its banned 

[MISkier]

@RAWSki, I assumed the opposite.  I assumed a shallow lake would preclude any use of such boats/wakes and those desiring the related activities must seek out a suitable body of water with the correct dimensions.

The same analysis would apply to lakes that are less that 1000 feet (plus the beam of said boat) in width.  There would be no activities on lakes that cannot guarantee 500 feet from the boat to any shoreline.

[sgregg]

3 hours ago, 2Valve said:

At the last meeting, one resident pointed out that assigning a certain distance from shore doesn't change the wave energy reaching the shoreline. It just takes a bit longer from 500 feet compared to 150.

Here is one of several studies that has examined wave energy dissipation distance from a sample of recreational boats at different speeds/weights (ballast vs no ballast).

Nothing particularly surprising, a ballasted G23 creates a bigger wake at 32mph than a 200, both make bigger wakes if they are plowing around at 10-12 mph, and energy dissipates over distance travelled.

 

AMC+Wave+Wake+Study_HB4099+Motorboat+Working+Group+REPORT.pdf

[2Valve]

1 hour ago, buechsr said:

Uh, that is not close to being accurate.  Do wakes travel, sure.  But they are muted significantly over distance.  Is a cruise ship wake showing up on the gulf of mexico shores?  No.  Are 5 foot surf boat waves showing up at docks?  Not unless they're fairly close.  

The example given was a wake boat out in the middle of the lake (1,000' in distance) and watching your docked boat rise and fall almost equal to the wave height generated. I remember doing a similar story problem in Calculus, but that was a long time ago and I only got a B in the class. I do know that our solution was to install rocks in front of our seawall. The initial wave approaching would still raise our pontoon 3-4 feet, but the waves never reached the seawall to amplify and bounce back. Problem solved.

[Drago]

@swbca I simply don't understand the doomsday negativity. Y'all were ripping on the original bill because it was vague and could've included 3 event boats, then it got distilled to wake boats (the Problem), and you still don't like it. 

I don't have time to look it up, but I would read the complete passed bill. I can't imagine lawmakers and lawyers created a mere 2 sentence bill. Certainly it has definitions. Maybe @MISkier has it or read it?

 

[MISkier]

@Drago and others, here is the submitted bill.  Nothing has been passed yet.

 

https://legislature.mi.gov/documents/2023-2024/billintroduced/House/pdf/2024-HIB-5532.pdf

Edited: the definitions below and the bolded text at the bottom are essentially the sole changes to the existing law:

"Wake boat" means a vessel that is equipped with wake enhancing equipment. Wake boat includes, but is not limited to, a wake surf boat and a ballasted boat.

"Wake-enhancing equipment" means ballast tanks, ballast bags, compartments, containers, or similar devices or mechanical systems designed to enhance the characteristics of a boat's wake.

"Wake sport mode" refers to operation of a wake boat with wake-enhancing equipment engaged.

 

A person shall not operate a vessel in wake sport mode on waters of this state where the water depth is less than 20 feet. A person operating a vessel in wake sport mode shall maintain a distance of not less than 500 feet from the shoreline or a dock, a raft, a buoyed or occupied bathing area, or a vessel moored or at anchor.

 

 

Edited February 29 by MISkier

[tjs1295]

On 12/11/2023 at 12:30 PM, Horton said:

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).

 

@Drago I see what you mean now. Good points, makes sense. I was probably getting wrapped up with the first paragraph of this entire thread. This makes my post look like a ray of sunshine!  

Anyway, does anyone know what else the manufacturers are doing to address the potential restrictive laws that are being written up? I don't have concerns about water skiing being regulated, but I want to see the people that make our slalom boats doing well. Might be a trickle down issue if they can't build their money makers. 

[Drago]

2 hours ago, MISkier said:

@Drago and others, here is the submitted bill.  Nothing has been passed yet.

 

https://legislature.mi.gov/documents/2023-2024/billintroduced/House/pdf/2024-HIB-5532.pdf

Edited: the definitions below and the bolded text at the bottom are essentially the sole changes to the existing law:

"Wake boat" means a vessel that is equipped with wake enhancing equipment. Wake boat includes, but is not limited to, a wake surf boat and a ballasted boat.

"Wake-enhancing equipment" means ballast tanks, ballast bags, compartments, containers, or similar devices or mechanical systems designed to enhance the characteristics of a boat's wake.

"Wake sport mode" refers to operation of a wake boat with wake-enhancing equipment engaged.

 

A person shall not operate a vessel in wake sport mode on waters of this state where the water depth is less than 20 feet. A person operating a vessel in wake sport mode shall maintain a distance of not less than 500 feet from the shoreline or a dock, a raft, a buoyed or occupied bathing area, or a vessel moored or at anchor.

 

 

Seems pretty great to me👏

[swbca]

15 hours ago, MISkier said:

@Drago and others, here is the submitted bill.  Nothing has been passed yet.

 

https://legislature.mi.gov/documents/2023-2024/billintroduced/House/pdf/2024-HIB-5532.pdf

Edited: the definitions below and the bolded text at the bottom are essentially the sole changes to the existing law:

"Wake boat" means a vessel that is equipped with wake enhancing equipment. Wake boat includes, but is not limited to, a wake surf boat and a ballasted boat.

"Wake-enhancing equipment" means ballast tanks, ballast bags, compartments, containers, or similar devices or mechanical systems designed to enhance the characteristics of a boat's wake.

"Wake sport mode" refers to operation of a wake boat with wake-enhancing equipment engaged.

 

A person shall not operate a vessel in wake sport mode on waters of this state where the water depth is less than 20 feet. A person operating a vessel in wake sport mode shall maintain a distance of not less than 500 feet from the shoreline or a dock, a raft, a buoyed or occupied bathing area, or a vessel moored or at anchor.

 

 

Regarding the phrase:

"Wake sport mode" refers to operation of a wake boat with wake-enhancing equipment engaged.

Aren't the hulls of wake boats designed to create a large wake even without the "Wake-enhancing equipment engaged"  ???   

I agree the language in the bill is very good, but these boats operated without the operator's consideration of his wake can cause more damage than a ski boat or most other recreational boats.   Obviously Boat speed is a wake enhancing factor but not a feature unique to wake boats.   Not sure how that can be addressed in the bill.

 

 

[Wiltok]

3 hours ago, swbca said:

Regarding the phrase:

"Wake sport mode" refers to operation of a wake boat with wake-enhancing equipment engaged.

Aren't the hulls of wake boats designed to create a large wake even without the "Wake-enhancing equipment engaged"  ???   

I agree the language in the bill is very good, but these boats operated without the operator's consideration of his wake can cause more damage than a ski boat or most other recreational boats.   Obviously Boat speed is a wake enhancing factor but not a feature unique to wake boats.   Not sure how that can be addressed in the bill.

 

 

I was thinking same. To the observer familiar with surfing you can tell when a boat is ballasted, but it sounds like surfing could still happen without ballast. I don't even know if that is possible but the boat would have to be boarded to prove whether they are using it or not. 

[bbruzzese]

Can foil without ballast for sure...

[Wish]

[swbca]

Ski Boat Owners, be careful not to operate your Ski Boat like a Wake Boat too close to shore.   This is behind our 2004 ProStar.  Two family members in the back seat for ballast.
 

Edited March 10 by swbca

[tjs1295]

This is an opportunity for anyone who wants to vote for or against these boats/manufacturers in Wisconsin. This is the second year they have included wake surfing boats as part of the survey. Last year there were 8 to 10 questions regarding the topic. 65% of the respondents voted for stricter regulations on these boats. so far they are just collecting public opinion.

[WoodySkier]

I know this is a ski forum, but the Michigan bill is bad for anyone who uses a boat for water sports.  Anyone who thinks otherwise or that this will end surf boats is kidding themselves.  The language doesn’t need to be changed the legislation needs to be killed.  

[tjs1295]

Just a reminder that people can take this survey for the next three days. There are a bunch of questions in the survey, but three of them are directly related to regulating wake surfing boats. Some of them would be pretty strict in the state of Wisconsin. The in person meetings were the first story on the local news from last night and they were covering the wakes surfing questions, not the other questions. I can’t remember from last year, but I don’t think you need to be a resident of the state of Wisconsin to take the survey. 

[tjs1295]

Just finished the survey. You do not have to be a resident of Wisconsin to take it. 

[tjs1295]

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/2024SpringHearings
 

The link. I hope. 

[S1Pitts]

@tjs1295 Looks like you do have to give a address for the survey. I am Canadian so it rejected me but that makes sense.

I have just learned from a reliable source that the Canadian federal government, who have jurisdiction on all waterways in Canada, are drafting legislation to regulate surf/large wake/boating  activities on all waterways. Our local lake stewardship is drafting bylaws to potentially reflect the legislation and here are some of the items on the table.

1 Designated surfing areas on the waterways, Traveling between these areas must have ballast/wake generators disengaged and on plane or a dead idle when traveling.

2 600ft from shorelines minimal.

3 Restrictions during high water periods

4 Restrictions on hours of the day when surfing is allowed.

5 35ft water depth minimal 

6 Noise regulation for sound systems.

Edited April 11 by S1Pitts
Added info

[tjs1295]

@S1Pitts I know under the FAQ it said you don’t have to be Wisconsin resident. Maybe the US though? Providing an address is what they say they do to prevent fraud. Very interesting regulations being proposed in your area.