Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 08-28-2014, 12:21 PM   #61
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: 3,801
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.
As someone who has transited the entire AICW, a good part of the GICW, and virtually all of the California Delta, I disagree with this. If you put your property in harms way on , in many cases on the ICW, IN, a public thorofare you need to take some responsibility. Common sense and courtesy work both ways. I consider us to be very respectful boaters, to a fault often times, but some of this stuff people do with "their property" is just ridiculous. The land owners that do get it, citizenship-wise, build the proper bulkheads and put their boats on lifts.
__________________
Advertisement

__________________
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, 12:34 PM   #62
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by caltexflanc View Post
As someone who has transited the entire AICW, a good part of the GICW, and virtually all of the California Delta, I disagree with this. If you put your property in harms way on , in many cases on the ICW, IN, a public thorofare you need to take some responsibility. Common sense and courtesy work both ways. I consider us to be very respectful boaters, to a fault often times, but some of this stuff people do with "their property" is just ridiculous. The land owners that do get it, citizenship-wise, build the proper bulkheads and put their boats on lifts.
__________________

psneeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2014, 02:43 PM   #63
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by caltexflanc View Post
...but some of this stuff people do with "their property" is just ridiculous..
That's your jiudgement, is it? And what's the reason the rest of the planet should judge everything the way you do? The property owners you are so fond of scorning probably think that what they did with their property is a great idea. They may even think that you're ridiculous for for driving around in a big, ugly, polluting boat and demeaning their right to do what they want with what they own.

To me, the bottom line is that people who think it's all about them and have no consideration for others are not worthy of respect or credibility regardless of the situation. So I dont' give them any.

While I have never travelled the ICW and have no desire to, it's my understanding that it was created to give commercial vessels a way of moving up and down the coast with some protection from the hazards of the open Atlantic. Seems like a great idea to me.

From what I've read on forums like this over the years and heard from people I've met who have boated the ICW, 99.9999 percent of the problems on the ICW stem from the recreational users, be they the SeaRay crowd that plows massive furrows along it and wakes the hell out of everything and everybody, sportfisherman who hang out in the middle of the channel apparenty oblivious to the navigation and safety problems they are presenting, or boaters who believe it just fine (or even fun) to run over the wildlife.

So if the majority of the problems come from the recreational users, then the solutions lie with the recreational users.

The easiest one is to kick all of them off the waterway and restrict it to the purpose it was constructed for: commercial traffic. But the recreational crowd undoubtedly contributes a lot to the economy along the eastern seaboard so that's not a very smart solution, although it would certainly be the most effective one.

So the most practical solution would be to have the recreational crowd act responsibly, which includes respecting the rights of the folks on shore who are or can be affected by what the boaters are doing.

Based on the impression I get from this forum and this thread, there is a handful of truly responsible boaters like Ron who seem to be able to use and enjoy the ICW with minimum or no impact on the other users and those who live along it.

They are able to do this, I presume based on how they word their posts, because they have made a conscious decision to operate their boats using common sense, self-responsibilty, respect for other's rights, and an understanding of how treating other people the way they want to be treated works (whch has nothing to do with religion, by the way). I don't read how they are using the legitimacy of wake signs, and the wording of rules, and the importance of their personal schedules to justify treating others badly.

And then there's everybody else.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2014, 03:09 PM   #64
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: 3,801
Quote:
That's your jiudgement, is it? And what's the reason the rest of the planet should judge everything the way you do?
You seem to get mad when you sense someone is daring to impinge on your franchise.

I really don't care what you've "read", because I speak from extensive in depth real world experience. Frankly, your opinion of what should and shouldn't be in the ICWs is worth even less than I paid for it.

By the way, if you'd ever seen us cruising our boat you would see we are the most courteous and thoughtful big boat on the waterway. In many thousands of mile cruising on such waterways, we have been yelled at exactly once by one guy on shore, northbound a little after the Coronado beach bridge in New Smyrna, FL. What was funny there was a water cop right there to whom I turned and gave a "what's with that?" type shrug. He yelled back at me, "don't mind him, he wants to ban every boat but his from using the ICW". Sounds like your kind of guy.

A big tug and tow can and will do quantum factors of damage more than any SeaRay nor other recreational boat is capable of, other than the few big sport fishers that sometimes act like a bull in a China shop, since their natural environment and normal cruising ground is offshore.

The point someone made about building a paper mache dock is not an outlandish one. But I guess you feel people can build anything they darn please and make everyone else accomodate them while taking no accountability for their own actions. How considerate!
__________________
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, 03:13 PM   #65
Guru
 
CaptTom's Avatar
 
City: Southern Maine
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Cygnus
Vessel Model: Prairie 36 Coastal Cruiser
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
And then there's everybody else.
There's a lot of sound reasoning in your post. I heartily agree with the sentiments toward the "all about me" crowd. But I think you're a little harsh on the recreational boaters.

In the "all about me" category, I would include people who buy houses near the airport, or the highway, then complain about the noise. Especially when they lobby to get those pre-existing critical infrastructure uses abolished or severely restricted.

By the same token, anyone who buys or rents dock space on a heavily-used commercial or recreational waterway surely should understand the inconveniences that come with that decision. Sometimes there are mitigation strategies, like lifts or breakwaters, that can be used. Sometimes you're just not at a good place to tie up a boat.

That shouldn't entitle you to shutting down the whole waterway, or virtually shutting it down by making it unusable for transiting vessels.

By the same token, owning a boat doesn't give you some sort of inalienable right to use full throttle everywhere you go.

There's enough blame to go around on both sides.
CaptTom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2014, 03:54 PM   #66
Guru
 
Scary's Avatar
 
City: Walnut Grove Ca
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Cary'D Away
Vessel Model: Hatteras 48 LRC
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 884
This subject has been beat to death

Here's my two cents worth, In the California delta there seems to prevail this opinion that if you can see a ripple on the water you have invaded someones space. Many farmers or home owners build a dock on a main channel used for water skiing or transit and expect every boater to come to screaming stop and idle by. It doesn't matter if the river is 500' wide. They have the right to impede the normal rights of other boaters because they chose to build a dock on the main channel. My boat is docked on the Sacramento river in the town of Locke. There is a speed control from Georgiana slough to the end of the Boat house in Locke. This is not an unreasonable request as there are numerous private marinas and two public docks. And the speed zone is monolithic from start to finish. I don't have any problem with a small boat leaving 6" wake at 5 mph. I do have a problem with someone leaving a 1.5' or better wake as it starts really beating up the docks and small boats. Occasionally we get ignorant boaters who are ether impatient or rude who chose to speed through causing damage. In California you are responsible for damage caused by your wake, regardless of posted speed, distance from docks or other boats. You are responsible for the damage. I don't like barking dogs, and that's what I call these yahoos that come yelling, foaming at the mouth over a 4" wake that might actually lap against their dock. On the other hand when some Aholes 2' wake lifts your boat over the dock ripping the fenders off that's just as bad. Boaters don't have right to damage other peoples property, you are responsible for the damage you do to others. Screaming at the top of your lungs because someone is leaving a ripple in the water you think is to large that causes no damage or real inconvenience is BS. In the delta there is way too much of this, Barking dogs I call them. In the Delta if you chose to build on a high traffic channel set your speed bouy's 300' off your dock and build your dock to take a ski boat wake from 300', but don't expect skiers to drop their skier idle by your dock and restart, because it's not going to happen, you'll be barking all day.
Scary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2014, 04:09 PM   #67
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Capt Tom--- One of the more reasonable and intelligent posts in this thread, in my opinon.

I totally agree that people on shore have every bit as much of a requirement to excercise common sense and responsibility as the people on the water. It's their responsibility to determine beforehand what the impact of vessel traffic will be on their property, and then act accordingly and intelligently

Just like boaters, some property buyers will be smart about what they do, and some won't.

What I have been reacting to here is the attitude on the part of a number of the thread participants that it's all about them and people who are dumb enough to buy property along a waterway simply have to take whatever the boaters dish out.

As a longtime seaplane pilot, and one who was selected to sit on the Seattle mayor's committee on Lake Union seaplane noise a number of years ago, I am well aware of the frustration that comes with-- in our case-- new residents moving onto a working lake that has had established commercial floatplane operators on it since 1928, and then complaining about the noise.

However, the solution was not to dismiss the residents' complaints as nonesense and accuse them of being "ridiculous" because of what they've chosen to do. While that can certainly satisfy a person's desire to give what they consider the dummies a whack on the head, it just makes the situation worse.

The posters in this thread who I consider, based solely on what they write, to be irresponsible and incsonsiderae operators, seem to see things only in black and white. "These people did a dumb thing so they deserve what I feel like doing to them."

I've seen this same attitude expressed and the reaction to it in the seaplane vs resident conflict, and I can tell you that it's a recipe for making things worse. And almost invariably, the winners are not the seaplane/boater/jestski/etc. crowd.

Residents in the San Juan Islands increasingly complained about the noise the jetski operators made, buzzing around endlessly. The jetski operators said, in essence, "Tough sh*t," and continued doing what they were doing.

The result of this attitude? The county banned all PWC operation in the islands except for emergency use. The ban survived the court challenges and stands to this day.

In the end, whatever happens in any conflict situation is directly tied to the attitude of the people involved. And I have to say, that with exceptions like you (Capt. John) Ron, Charles Cullotta and a few others, as a boater, I have not been impressed with the attitude I am reading from the eastern seaboard. Frankly, I'm glad I don't boat there.

Now I know the reaction will be "We dont' give a sh*t what you think of us," and that's fine. There's no reason why you should.

But this thread was started with the notion that people who post illigitimate No Wake signs should be ignored and boaters should do whatever they want to do in front of their property since the signs carry no authority. Technically, that's correct. But in my opinion, it's a crap attitude for a boater to live by.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2014, 05:31 PM   #68
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: 10,265
That's one advantage of a six-knot FD boat: only need to drop speed by about one knot.
__________________
Kar-KEEN-ez Koot
markpierce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2014, 05:52 PM   #69
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,913
This and the last thread about ICW wakes....I would vote as the most misunderstood bit of posting I've come across on what others are really posting....

Thin air...thin air....bravado and name calling. It's about a federally managed waterway and it's use that the ACOE has clearly made it's opinion known...yet states, locals and residents choose to ignore the mandates...even the state laws supporting the ACOE.

12 years of assistance towing and another couple of deliveries....not one formal complaint about excessive wakes...plus all my private miles...so it's NOT all about me.

Have fun....I just got back from an ICW tow and will be going back out yet again on one of my over 200 calls a year on ICW boaters...and the other four months I travel almost 2500 miles on it.....so all you really experienced ICW travelers have a nice "irrelevant" discussion.
psneeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2014, 06:04 PM   #70
Guru
 
Mule's Avatar
 
City: Fort Pierce
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Florita Ann
Vessel Model: 1982 Present
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by psneeld View Post
This and the last thread about ICW wakes....I would vote as the most misunderstood bit of posting I've come across on what others are really posting....

Thin air...thin air....bravado and name calling. It's about a federally managed waterway and it's use that the ACOE has clearly made it's opinion known...yet states, locals and residents choose to ignore the mandates...even the state laws supporting the ACOE.

12 years of assistance towing and another couple of deliveries....not one formal complaint about excessive wakes...plus all my private miles...so it's NOT all about me.

Have fun....I just got back from an ICW tow and will be going back out yet again on one of my over 200 calls a year on ICW boaters...and the other four months I travel almost 2500 miles on it.....so all you really experienced ICW travelers have a nice "irrelevant" discussion.

You silver tongued devil...sold me... bottom line, in my slow boat I just drive and I do not slow down, hell I will loose steerage....
Mule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2014, 06:07 PM   #71
Guru
 
Mule's Avatar
 
City: Fort Pierce
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Florita Ann
Vessel Model: 1982 Present
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by markpierce View Post
That's one advantage of a six-knot FD boat: only need to drop speed by about one knot.
I wonder how that would play out in front of a jury....HE WAS GOING SIX KNOTS, YES SIX KNOTS THE SCOUNDREL.....ugggg what is the speed limit...5 KNOTS.....OH OK....
Your honor, request to dismiss.
Mule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2014, 06:08 PM   #72
Guru
 
Alaskan Sea-Duction's Avatar
 
City: Inside Passage Summer/Columbia River Winter
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Alaskan Sea-Duction
Vessel Model: 1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by psneeld View Post
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.


So I wonder if the Columbia River is considered a federal water way under the control of USACE? If so, can the state require a dock owner to post no wake signage?
__________________
1988 M/Y Camargue Yacht Fisher
Alaskan Sea-Duction
MMSI: 338131469
Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/
Alaskan Sea-Duction is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2014, 06:39 PM   #73
Guru
 
windmill29130's Avatar
 
City: Little River SC
Vessel Name: JAZ
Vessel Model: Ta Chaio/CT35
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 716
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwidman View Post


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?
As usual there are exceptions. Use common sense but all the homemade dock signs don't mean diddly. If there is no law enforcement name or symbol I wouldn't worry.
windmill29130 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2014, 07:05 PM   #74
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,913
One of the first clues ...if it's on private property other than a marina...chances are it's not authoritative...but sure...anything is possible in this world...including not understanding the difference between landowners illegally trying to control boaters even though the boaters will try and comply beyond all reasonableness.
psneeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2014, 07:14 PM   #75
Guru
 
High Wire's Avatar
 
City: Cape May, NJ and Englewood, FL
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Irish Lady
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by markpierce View Post
That's one advantage of a six-knot FD boat: only need to drop speed by about one knot.
For my boat, cruising speed = 6.5 kts and small wake. 5.5 kts = no wake. I bought a trawler expecting the whole ICW to be no wake some day. Not in a hurry anyway. More worried about coming anchoring restrictions.
__________________
Archie
1984 Monk 36 Hull #46
Englewood, FL and Cape May, NJ
High Wire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2014, 07:18 PM   #76
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by High Wire View Post
For my boat, cruising speed = 6.5 kts and small wake. 5.5 kts = no wake. I bought a trawler expecting the whole ICW to be no wake some day. Not in a hurry anyway. More worried about coming anchoring restrictions.
Some of the same mentality crosses over from the same type of landowners...free passage and anchoring of boaters is not in their vocabulary....despite the USCG/ACOE and other federal mandates.
psneeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2014, 07:32 PM   #77
Guru
 
City: North Charleston, SC
Country: USA
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by windmill29130 View Post
As usual there are exceptions. Use common sense but all the homemade dock signs don't mean diddly. If there is no law enforcement name or symbol I wouldn't worry.
It's not hard to copy the name or symbol and from a distance "SCDNR" and "SCDMR" look pretty much the same.
rwidman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2014, 07:39 PM   #78
Guru
 
City: North Charleston, SC
Country: USA
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,390
The common thread I see in all the no-wake zone threads is that some boaters seem resentful that someone with more money than them would build a "McMansion" on the waterway. We've seen it in this thread where people say they would slow down for a marina or business but not for private docks.

At any rate, nobody changes anyone else's mind in these arguments. The same folks will do the same things they have been doing all along. They just post to try to justify their actions.
rwidman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2014, 07:59 PM   #79
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwidman View Post
At any rate, nobody changes anyone else's mind in these arguments. The same folks will do the same things they have been doing all along. They just post to try to justify their actions.
An unfortunate but accurate summary.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2014, 07:59 PM   #80
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwidman View Post
The common thread I see in all the no-wake zone threads is that some boaters seem resentful that someone with more money than them would build a "McMansion" on the waterway. We've seen it in this thread where people say they would slow down for a marina or business but not for private docks.

At any rate, nobody changes anyone else's mind in these arguments. The same folks will do the same things they have been doing all along. They just post to try to justify their actions.
The reason is because of "THE LAW" not because of personal indifference to wealth or not....

I remember quite a few times here SOMEONE saying that others should read closer...and TRY and understand...I couldn't agree more....if I could only remember who....

Plus I don't remember anyone saying they purposefully threw damaging wakes...usually just the opposite...the complaint IS the illegal no wake signs and not just wanton disregard for others....
__________________

psneeld 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 04:24 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