No Wake Signs

caltexflanc · Aug 28, 2014

Marin said:
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.

psneeld · Aug 28, 2014

caltexflanc said:
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.

Marin · Aug 28, 2014

caltexflanc said:
...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.

caltexflanc · Aug 28, 2014

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!

CaptTom · Aug 28, 2014

Marin said:
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.

Scary · Aug 28, 2014

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.

Marin · Aug 28, 2014

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.

markpierce · Aug 28, 2014

That's one advantage of a six-knot FD boat: only need to drop speed by about one knot.

psneeld · Aug 28, 2014

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.

Mule · Aug 28, 2014

psneeld said:
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... :dance:

bottom line, in my slow boat I just drive and I do not slow down, hell I will loose steerage....

Mule · Aug 28, 2014

markpierce said:
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. :rofl:

Alaskan Sea-Duction · Aug 28, 2014

psneeld said:
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?

windmill29130 · Aug 28, 2014

rwidman said:
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.

psneeld · Aug 28, 2014

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.

High Wire · Aug 28, 2014

markpierce said:
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.

psneeld · Aug 28, 2014

High Wire said:
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.

rwidman · Aug 28, 2014

windmill29130 said:
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 · Aug 28, 2014

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.

Marin · Aug 28, 2014

rwidman said:
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.

psneeld · Aug 28, 2014

rwidman said:
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....

rwidman · Aug 28, 2014

psneeld said:
................ but when delivering yachts...no wake can be an issue for time, money, wear and tear, etc...etc on the transiting yacht.

I can respect marinas and most commercial establishments that obviously have history along the ICW...but I have no mercy for a new McMansion that should have spent money on a boatlift than exorbitant landscaping and a cheapo store bought or hand painted no wake sign.

What can I say?

psneeld · Aug 28, 2014

QUOTE=rwidman;261934]What can I say?[/QUOTE]
You are the champ at assuming here...I never said I made damaging wakes to these guys...I just said I have no mercy for them....they may get a little more than none.

The real reason you don't hear more about wake damage from these people is because they know they don't have a leg to stand on once they contact someone in the system that knows the law.

Again...I didn't say I was careless...just resentful that THEY can break the law...and the local bubba doesn't care.... but if I get a wake report on me...I get run down by every LE agency within radio reach....and possibly fined but usually not because there IS NO wake damage....but you are still delayed on your trip because of THEIR ILLEGAL SELFISHNESS.

THAT's the gripe...FAIRNESS to boaters...who have the ACOE on their LEGAL side...just that this is broken like other things.

Forkliftt · Aug 28, 2014

charles said:
======

Janice,
We were apprised of your post and Pat, THE WIFE, is most appreciative that you saved that and more importantly REMEMBERED. That was quite a few years ago.

CCC and THE WIFE

Hey Charles and Pat. It's great to see you on the site!

1983 Present 42 Sundeck
Twin Lehman 135's

windmill29130 · Aug 28, 2014

rwidman said:
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.

Who are "they"? I hope you are including yourself.

rwidman · Aug 28, 2014

On my part of the ICW, many of the boats are on lifts but it's the floating docks that take a beating from the wakes. You don't hear about claims for damage because the damage is cumulative. Also, few people can just sit and watch their docks 24/7.

The thread was started about the bogus no wake signs put up by landowners and I am bothered by these as much as anyone because they make it difficult to differentiate the bogus ones from the real ones.

My wake is pretty small but I do slow down or move as far away as possible when there is an issue.

psneeld · Aug 28, 2014

Fair enough...the bogus signs are the real issue...

...but like squatting... I fear they all will become real and the ICW will ONLY be suitable for slow trawlers and sailboats....and commercial traffic will suffer which will affect funding which will affect long term dredging/improvement/marking issues.

Another legal challenge like anchoring that doesn't need to be fought on the backs of cruisers.

The issue isn't simple but it's also not just about "me".

BruceK · Aug 28, 2014

Signs (authorized or not) and laws proscribing wake, are usually in response to behavior inconsistent with the quiet enjoyment by others of a waterway and adjacent land.

Capecodder · Aug 29, 2014

My current vessel is not very fast, and I'm posting on a trawler forum, so I expect most of the most of other posters don't go too fast. I know I respect others and have been waked often on the ICW by inconsiderate boaters, but I have a real issue that as one poster said, it ONLY the rich land owners count! But it's a forum so......

FF · Aug 29, 2014

Signs (authorized or not) and laws proscribing wake, are usually in response to behavior inconsistent with the quiet enjoyment by others of a waterway and adjacent land.

We are on the Caloosahatchie and most signs are an attempt to prevent washout and shallowing.

A few are an attempt to help boats poorly secured to crap docks.

The smart folks use lifts to raise the boat 5 or 6 ft , above most wakes.

psneeld · Aug 29, 2014

BruceK said:
Signs (authorized or not) and laws proscribing wake, are usually in response to behavior inconsistent with the quiet enjoyment by others of a waterway and adjacent land.

If you wanted quiet enjoyment of a waterway would you buy on water that is managed by the government for commercial traffic and used a boating highway??? or around the corner, up some creek where only the canoes and kayakers can go?

I said earlier in my posts that I had sympathy for landowners, marinas, commercial establishments that had or need roots along the waterway.

They don't and should not need to comprise the total length making it still a viable waterway for speedy travel.

The problem is with population growth/expansion...even though the LEGAL AUTHORITIES don't seem to be granting a lot of new "no wake" zones....people are building along the waterway, putting in docks that can be damaged by wakes and then forcing the issue when clearly they should be doing it either legally or sensibly.

They are ultimately changing the nature of a resource funded for something else by their own selfish actions.

It would be no different than building along a famous whitewater rafting river and slowly but surely changing the nature of that river either physically or just flat out preventing people from doing it. In most cases the government protects the river and it's current use...but for some reason the AIWW doesn't get much attention despite a privately formed organization to help its cause.

About Us

No Wake Signs

Guru

Guru

Guru

Guru

Guru

Guru

Guru

Master and Commander

Guru

Guru

Guru

Guru

Guru

Guru

Guru

Guru

Guru

Guru

Guru

Guru

Guru

Guru

Guru

Guru

Guru

Guru

Moderator Emeritus

Senior Member

Guru

Guru

Similar threads