Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 08-27-2014, 09:20 PM   #41
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Big, big difference between what a commercial vessel (or airplane) HAS to do, and what some recreational boater in a toy boat WANTS to do.

I have zero sympathy for what a toy boater (like me) wants to do at the expense of other people's property or safety. By my way of thinking, if the recreational boater has to traverse the ICW or the Inside Passage or whatever at 6 knots to avoid damaging other people's property, so be it. To me, that's part of the responsibility one accepts if one wants the priviledge of operating a boat. If the boater doesn't like it, they can boat somewhere else or take up some other pastime. Or whine about it on this forum.

We could go through narrow Obstruction Pass in the San Juans at 8 knots or 15 knots or 25 knots if the boat could go that fast. There are no signs or regulations that prevent us from doing so. At 8 knots it would save us five minutes in the transit, but even our wake at 8 knots would beat the absolute crap out of every dock and boat tied up inside the pass. So we slow down until our wake is minimal, and most other people do, too. It's a matter of courtesy and respect, and sometimes those trump convenience and self-centeredness.

There are a few bozo boaters who run through the pass kicking up a big wake, but everyone knows they're as*holes and regards and treats them accordingly.
__________________
Advertisement

Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2014, 09:33 PM   #42
Senior Member
 
charles's Avatar
 
City: patterson
Country: usa
Vessel Model: CHB 45 Pilot House
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 158
Marin is absolutely right.

I often remind pleasure boaters that we are PLAYING and the commercials are EARNING A LIVING.

Enough said.

CCC
__________________

__________________
Charles C Culotta, Jr
Patterson, La.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
charles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2014, 09:36 PM   #43
Guru
 
City: North Charleston, SC
Country: USA
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,390
A wake from a pleasure boat is no different than one from a commercial boat and does the same damage. They should abide by the same rules
rwidman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2014, 09:39 PM   #44
Guru
 
sbu22's Avatar
 
City: New Orleans
Country: US
Vessel Name: Panache
Vessel Model: Viking 43 Double Cabin '76
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 677
Rambler - just came through there Sunday - the water cops were out - a "wake trap", perhaps ? And, just mentioning, where does my boat's wake fit, in the scheme of things, with respect to the bow wave of the tow chugging up the ditch?

In practice, I'm very conservative in this regard. Just a bit fed up with the sign pollution on that stretch of ICW. It's otherwise a nice ride.
sbu22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2014, 09:58 PM   #45
Guru
 
timjet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,905
For those of you familiar with the ICW I think most would agree that slow no wake in front of every home that could be damaged by a cruising pleasure boat at normal cruising speeds would make using the ICW virtually impractical. I cruise at 8 kts and my wake is not much different than when I do 20 kts. I would have to slow to 4 kts to satisfy no wake zones.
I'm guessing but the ICW is populated by 50% of its length by such homes.
__________________
Tim
Tampa Bay
Carver 355 ACMY Twin Cummins Diesels Sold
timjet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2014, 09:59 PM   #46
Guru
 
windmill29130's Avatar
 
City: Little River SC
Vessel Name: JAZ
Vessel Model: Ta Chaio/CT35
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 716
In South Carolina, if it has this logo/symbol on the sign or buoy, it is legit. Otherwise, motor on baby!
Attached Images
  
windmill29130 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2014, 10:17 PM   #47
Guru
 
N4712's Avatar
 
City: South FL
Country: U.S.A
Vessel Name: Oliver
Vessel Model: Nordhavn 47 Hull# 12
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 3,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by timjet View Post
For those of you familiar with the ICW I think most would agree that slow no wake in front of every home that could be damaged by a cruising pleasure boat at normal cruising speeds would make using the ICW virtually impractical. I cruise at 8 kts and my wake is not much different than when I do 20 kts. I would have to slow to 4 kts to satisfy no wake zones.
I'm guessing but the ICW is populated by 50% of its length by such homes.
__________________
Thanks, Oliver
M/V Oliver
Nordhavn 47 Hull #12
N4712 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2014, 10:28 PM   #48
Guru
 
Mule's Avatar
 
City: Fort Pierce
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Florita Ann
Vessel Model: 1982 Present
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,784
Firstly, I have no intention of causing any damage. Nor do I intend to worry very much about signs not placed by a government entity. I doubt I would slow down from my customary 75 if some yahoo put up a billboard telling the motoring public on a highway not to drive over 60 in a 70. Exactly the same. I really do not have to worry too much insofar as I only cruse at 6knots. They do not have the authority and no one has ANY obligation to heed their unofficial signs. Now that being said, that does not mean common courtesy should not still be the order of the day.
Mule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2014, 10:32 PM   #49
Senior Member
 
Capecodder's Avatar
 
City: Cape Cod, MA or Fort Myers, FL
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Osprey
Vessel Model: Her Shine. Newburyport
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
To my way of thinking, the presence of a sign is irrelevant. When the person bought the land and what they do with it is irrelevant. What one thinks of the person that owns the land is irrelvant. It doesn't matter who was "there first." There was no law preventing the person from buying and developing the land in the way that they did, so one's own opnion about what they did or didn't do is also irrlevalt.

The only thing that's relevant is the effect the passage of one's boat will have on the people or property around it. If the desired operation of the boat is potentially damaging or dangerous, then don't operate the boat that way.

If the land owner was smart and put up bulkheads and whatnot in anticipation of what the boat wakes might do, great. But if the land owner wasn't that smart, that doesn't give one the right to deliberately damage his stuff.

As I said earlier, it's called common sense and responsibility. It continues to amaze me how many so-called experienced boaters don't have either one of them.
So if I build a papier-mâché dock in front of my lot on the ICW now all the users of the waterway better not get it wet?
Capecodder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2014, 10:48 PM   #50
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Just as an FYI as to what can happen, the Washington State Ferry system introduced some passenger-only, "high-speed" ferries (photo) some years ago on the high-volume run between Bremerton and downtown Seattle. The water route into Bremerton from the main body of Puget Sound goes through fairly narrow dogleg pass called Rich Passage. I suspect it was named for one of Capt. Vancouver's guys, but nevertheless, it's prime real estate and has a lot of expensive waterfront homes lining it.

I forget the speed of the passenger ferries but it was substantial, and at speed the boats kicked up an impressive wake. As opposed to the big car ferries with their double-end hull designs that put up an amazingly (to me) small wake despite their impressive speed for vessels of that size.

The problem was that the passenger ferry wakes were breaking, and they came ashore on both sides of Rich Passage and began to erode the beaches and banks away.

The property owners complained. The ferry people ignored them. The property owners complained louder. The ferry people said the wakes from the passenger ferries were not big or strong enough to errode the shoreline. The property owners shot video of the wakes washing sand away and collapsing banks and called the TV stations which sent news crews out to shoot more video of the wakes washing sand away and collapsing banks.

IIRC, armed with this visual evidence,the property owners began filing, or threatening to file, really big lawsuits against the ferry system and anyone else they could think of to compensate them for their loss of property and the threat this posed to their residences, their property values, and other stuff.

The passenger ferries were ordered to slow down going through Rich Passage.

Since the passenger ferries were not so much "high speed": anymore for a good chunk of their voyage, they rapidly fell out of favor with the public. They boats had other problems, too, and in the end, they were pulled out of service and sold off to someplace else.

This was a commercial operation run by the state ferry system, and they were forced to reduce/eliminate their wakes. You can imagine what would have happened if it had been recreational boaters who were causing the problem. Speed limits wouold have been imposed sooner than instantly and enforced "vigorously" as they are on lakes Washington and Union (great source of revenue, boaters speeding in speed zones, as the marine police on lakes learned many years ago).

It's been my observation that when it comes to push vs. shove, the people with the money and the clout always win, and along a waterway, be it Rich Passage or the ICW, those people are the property owners. Recreational boaters, like recreational aircraft owners, are viewed by the majority as unduly priviliged and thus are great targets for everything from speed restrictions and other "rules" to special annual customs payments for the annual decal that says it's okay for you to bring your boat/aircraft back across the border from Canada.

So the next time you ICW people decide to plow past some big house and beat up his dock or wash away some of his landscaping or put a dent in his ski boat, remember that if he and his neighbors get mad enough to do something, you'll most likely be on the losing end, and creeping up and down the ditch at a glacial pace will gradually become the norm.
Attached Images
 
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2014, 10:51 PM   #51
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capecodder View Post
So if I build a papier-mâché dock in front of my lot on the ICW now all the users of the waterway better not get it wet?
That would depend on how much political and financial clout you have. Both of them are what make the world go round, and if you have enough of one or the other or both I imagine you could force all the recreational boaters on the ICW to have to portage their boats around your property on their backs.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2014, 11:43 PM   #52
Master and Commander
 
markpierce's Avatar
 
City: Vallejo CA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Carquinez Coot
Vessel Model: 2011 Seahorse Marine Coot hull #6
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 10,262
When we followed tugboat Bob down the Napa River, it slowed to 5 knots when passing the private docks along the bank of Edgerley Island. It went a little faster otherwise in the river.

__________________
Kar-KEEN-ez Koot
markpierce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2014, 12:12 AM   #53
Guru
 
Gulf Comanche's Avatar
 
City: Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Country: U.S.A.
Vessel Name: Old School
Vessel Model: 38' Trawler custom built by Hike Metal Products
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 799
Common sense and courtesy? Both in short supply these days. Being a southern boy, both were drummed into my head early on. Slow down when you ought to, if you're in some kind of big hurry go get a job.
Gulf Comanche is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2014, 01:57 AM   #54
Guru
 
BruceK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 7,567
To wake or not to wake?
It almost certainly reflects one`s attitude in life to others. If you respect the rights of others, and limit your discretionary actions so they do not unreasonably impinge on the rights of others, you won`t wake. If you don`t care about the rights of others and regard your own interests as more important than anyone else`s, you will wake, and it won`t bother you a bit.
__________________
BruceK
Island Gypsy 36 Europa "Doriana"
Sydney Australia
BruceK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2014, 07:21 AM   #55
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,887
I think a lot of this discussion is thin air. It's not about respect and responsibility...it's about USE of a natural resource and who controls how it is to be used.

I'll bet the tolerance for new and ever expanding "no-wake" zones are directly proportional to the miles one travels on the ICW every year and the "need" to travel at speeds that create a wake.

Like pointed out many times...if a lot of people who think "no wake" zones every couple of miles is OK....I'll bet they are happy when travelling cross country along with the truckers that every city seems to be adding more and more access to the interstate system. As cities expand and more exits are added for growing suburbs...it take forever to get anyplace. That's not really what "limited access" highways were designed for...and neither is the ICW. If they build bypasses for the interstates...maybe it's time to think bypass for the ICW which seems nuts...just disallow new and work towards removing existing no wake zones

My 6.3 knots in my trawler never really varies much because neither does my wake. So who cares?

But yesterday when captaining a 55 Viking for a friend for a sea trial...there was virtually no place I could go to get the boat up to speed without waking somebody or something. Yes, if the inlet hadn't been bad from hurricane swells, the ocean was a possibility.

The trips I have made delivering boats or all the commercial runs up and down the ICW with tug/barges, larger commercial craft, etc..etc...yes illegal "no wake" buys are a concern because they slow commerce down. Even more so is the proliferation of new construction that does not mandate boat lifts and practical dock engineering.

The Government has established the ICW and controls part of it's usage...many that use it a lot for personal or business reasons feel that it should be used for what it is intended for.

There's plenty of water around the ICW in most cases that if you want waterfront...you don't have to buy it on the "boat highway".

If anyone has a right to cry about wakes...certainly I'm one of them as I live on a boat next to the ICW and spend my whole year either running it or living on it. I just see the rights of the people trying to use it for what it was intended for being chipped away by dirtdwellers.
psneeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2014, 08:10 AM   #56
Guru
 
City: North Charleston, SC
Country: USA
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by windmill29130 View Post
In South Carolina, if it has this logo/symbol on the sign or buoy, it is legit. Otherwise, motor on baby!


Not quite. There are no wake signs in Charleston with a CPD (Charleston Police Department) logo. I wouldn't advise ignoring these.

So you have a variety of official entities who can establish and enforce no-wake zones. As you travel, it's difficult to know what is official and what is not.

The other problem is the placement of the signs or buoys. How do you know if you're entering a no-wake zone or leaving it? How do you know if it applies to the entire width of the river or from the sign to the shore?

And what's to stop a landowner from installing official looking signs or buoys?
rwidman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2014, 08:13 AM   #57
Guru
 
Mule's Avatar
 
City: Fort Pierce
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Florita Ann
Vessel Model: 1982 Present
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,784
Yep, people building at the end of a bust airport runway then bitching about the noise and worrying about safety.......
Mule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2014, 08:49 AM   #58
Guru
 
caltexflanc's Avatar
 
City: North Carolina for now
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Small Incentive
Vessel Model: Boston Whaler 130 Sport
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,792
Quote:
Along the same lines, how does the manatee know where the channel is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwidman View Post
The channel is marked.
No, they know where the nearby real estate is the most expensive.
__________________
George

"There's the Right Way, the Wrong Way, and what some guy says he's gotten away with"
caltexflanc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2014, 10:30 AM   #59
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,887
part of the problem

Navigation Wake Zone Info
No Wake Zones in Federally Maintained Waters

The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission does not have statutory authority to establish No Wake Zones within Federal waters such as the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) maintains the AIWW with Federal funds in support of interstate commercial navigation traffic. With rare exceptions USACE does not concur with establishment of No Wake Zones along the open reaches of the AIWW. No Wake Zone signage placed on private property along the AIWW, and without the concurrence of USACE does not mark a legitimate No Wake Zone and is not enforceable. For questions about No Wake Zones in Federal waters please contact the USACE Wilmington District

while local towns and states often ignore the rules/wishes of the feds...I think this pretty well sums it up for the OP.

Post #2 show's I'm neither careless or heartless...just trying to fit in with the wishes of the bigger picture.

Post #3 from RT who travels this area seems to confirm a general though of those that have to deal with the ICW...not the more remote parts of America.
psneeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2014, 11:55 AM   #60
Guru
 
City: North Charleston, SC
Country: USA
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,390
The difficulty is determining which signs are legitimate and which are not. The other issue is, if you are out of your home state and cited for a violation of a "fake" no wake zone, it would cost more to return and defend yourself than to just pay the fine.

It's kind of like the speed traps some towns create along the Interstates.
__________________

rwidman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012