No Wake Signs

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
It least FL is fairly consistent. What I dont get is in the river to the City of Ft. Myers. Slow Speed, Minimum Wake Manatee zone in the deep channel but 25 MPH zone in the shallows where the manatees hang out. :confused:
t
What's hard to read on those signs are the dates that the limit is effective. Something like Nov 15 to Feb 15. That is especially true up around the power plant.
 
If you obeyed everyone's no wake sign you wouldn't get anywhere in a day.

We observe all official signs and of course slow down for fishermen in small craft when appropriate.

The ones I don't like are the fishermen that sit in the middle of a channel in a 20+ foot boat and expect you to go by super slow, I had a guy that was mad at the world the other day on Lake Michigan who yelled at me to stay in the middle of the lake and not 2 miles form shore where we were.
 
It least FL is fairly consistent. What I dont get is in the river to the City of Ft. Myers. Slow Speed, Minimum Wake Manatee zone in the deep channel but 25 MPH zone in the shallows where the manatees hang out. :confused:

From my Aphorisms file:

Manatees reside in the nicer, more populated areas. Generally the more upscale and pricey the real estate, the more manatees, requiring more signs and "no wake" zones. Pat Culotta.
 
LIke everything to do with boating, I believe it boils down to common sense and personal responsibility.

I think Ron expressed it very well when he asked what difference it makes if of one's wake is going to damage sometthing belonging to the waterfront "McMansion" or the fisherman in a cheap aluminum skiff?

Whether a no wake sign is official, home-made, or not even there, it shouldn't make any difference to how one operates their boat. They should have the intelligence and common sense to figure out what effect the passage of their boat is going to have on the people and property around it and operate their boat accordingly.

To put one's own schedule and convenience ahead of respect for the people, property,and environment around them is, to me, the very definition of an irresponsible and unintelligent boater.
 
Last edited:
To let people run the world, in defiance of state law, by the means of a piece of plywood and spray paint can, ....well to me means that's the COMPLETE DEFINITION of irresponsible and unintelligent. They have to expect the "regular" not the regulars have to expect the "irregular".

These people buy land long after many generations of laws have been passed supporting the ICW and when they feel because THEY have the money to buy up intracoastal property...they now have the ability to make a boating highway a bicycle path for boaters...well I have little sympathy for the few and I say few because most obey the law and buy lifts...but a few think THEY can control the actions of legislators and thousands of boaters.

It's not about rich and poor...it's about I AM RICH and I'LL BUY MY WISHES ANY WAY I CAN...despite the laws and disregard for the "existing boating community".

Not everyone is out for a holiday on their boat...there's plenty of "business" going on that requires expedience without the hassel of a few "SELF SERVING" I can do whatever I like types.
 
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.
 
From my Aphorisms file:

Manatees reside in the nicer, more populated areas. Generally the more upscale and pricey the real estate, the more manatees, requiring more signs and "no wake" zones. Pat Culotta.

Seems all bridges are manatees zones too. Never seen one around ours in Englewood but I guess they do pass thru eventually.
 
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.

Easy to say if you don't do the ditch with regularity.

The ditch is like a superhighway for boats...

While responsibility and courtesy shouldn't be abandoned...there are laws keeping pedestrians, bikers, horses and slow pokes off of interstates that have minimum speeds and motorized mandatory.

Even the states have recognized the need to have reason rule on the ICW and prevent people from putting up those signs that aren't approved...THE STATES recognize the selfishness of people to come along and alter the lifestyle of tens of thousands and equally as many commercial operations.

While limiting takeoff profiles in certain airspace is important...there are places where that's just impractical and people moving into places under those departures have to recognize they are doing so consciously. Should we close every airport because of one noise complaint around them?

No and to make a several thousand mile boat highway no-wake the whole distance is just as bad...especially when the government spends a fortune on keeping parts of it open just for commercial traffic...just crazy....
 
aphormism file

From my Aphorisms file:

Manatees reside in the nicer, more populated areas. Generally the more upscale and pricey the real estate, the more manatees, requiring more signs and "no wake" zones. Pat Culotta.

======

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
 
What's the wake behavior of commercial boaters in that waterway/ditch?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Marin is absolutely right.

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

Enough said.

CCC
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
In South Carolina, if it has this logo/symbol on the sign or buoy, it is legit. Otherwise, motor on baby! :dance:
 

Attachments

  • 2014-08-27-21-51-27--464337256.jpeg
    2014-08-27-21-51-27--464337256.jpeg
    10.7 KB · Views: 350
  • images.jpeg
    images.jpeg
    6.4 KB · Views: 194
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.

:thumb::thumb::thumb:
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 

Attachments

  • fastferry.jpg
    fastferry.jpg
    24.8 KB · Views: 185
Last edited:
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.:)
 
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.

img_261636_0_4bf93aeac34be8c6b697783089651f49.jpg
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
In South Carolina, if it has this logo/symbol on the sign or buoy, it is legit. Otherwise, motor on baby! :dance:
attachment.php


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?
 
Yep, people building at the end of a bust airport runway then bitching about the noise and worrying about safety.......
 
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.​
 
Last edited:
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.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom