WakeWorld (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/index.php)
-   Archive through June 19, 2005 (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=236768)
-   -   Portland Oregon it's time to fight for your sport (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=234161)

sunsport 06-13-2005 1:33 PM

Okay everyone there is a motion to limit the size of wakes on the Willamette. If we want to stop this thing we are going to have to get together tomorrow night (Tuesday) to represent: <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregonian/bill_monroe/index.ssf?/base/sports/1118484618150940.xml&amp;coll=7" target="_blank">http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregonian/bill_monroe/index.ssf?/base/sports/1118484618150940.xml&amp;coll=7</a> <BR> <BR>They have already made "wake enhancing devices" against the rules on Lake Oswego, which is killing us on the lake. They are only talking about one section on the river. But I am sure once established the whole thing could snowball across all of our rivers and lakes throughout the state. I would think this would have an effect on not just wakeboarders but local companys e.g. Active Watersports, Mastercraft, US Outdoor, Natique, Straightline, even G.I. Joes. <BR> <BR>"public meeting at 7 p.m. Tuesday in Lake Oswego to review Andersen's request for the new zone. It will be in the Lake Oswego Community Center, 505 G Ave., and gives the Marine Board its first look at the proposal and reaction from the public. " <BR> <BR>We really need to come together for this event. I realize it is short notice but for anyone that cares about the sport of wakeboarding in the Portland area try to make it to this public hearing. <BR> <BR>Skiing made me board, <BR>Lyle <BR>Chrome Dome Industries

tyboarder03 06-13-2005 3:06 PM

I hear you on that man but I'm all the way in Bend and i gotta work otherwise I'd be there too, and its all our lakes and rivers not just Ptown, any ways keep this post goin i wanna know how the meeting goes tommorrow.

socalwakepunk 06-13-2005 3:24 PM

Even though I'm in SoCal, I definitely agree with you, Lyle. This is something not ot be taken lightly. <BR> <BR>Anyone/Everyone who wakeboards in the PNW needs to make an effort to attend this meeting, and make wakeboarder's voices heard.

sunsport 06-14-2005 7:25 AM

It is ridiculous. I grew up on the Columbia and my dad and I were constantly fighting the maintenance on the dock. It is just part of living on the water. What are these people going to do when a flood comes, sue the mother nature for too much rain, or what about a big windstorm and Mr. Anderson’s little wave gage goes off the scale, “oh no the waves are over legal limit I am going to fine . . .uh. . .uh that guy across the river for cutting down his trees and allowing the wind to blow more.” Get a life buddy welcome to owning a house on the river, you have to do occasional work on your dock. Oh no you had to replace your ½” bolts with ¾” bolts. Poor baby. <BR> <BR>I am trying to rally as many people as I can to go to this but it is tough. I know if they pass a law a ton of wakeboarders are going to be pissed but at that point it is going to be 10 times more difficult to reverse it. Hopefully some of you guys can make it tonight. I think it is pretty important to the future of our sport that we make a good show tonight. <BR> <BR>Skiing made me board, <BR>Lyle <BR>Chrome Dome Industries <BR> <BR> <BR>(Message edited by sunsport on June 14, 2005)

jayp 06-14-2005 10:10 AM

This must not pass. If you can't attend the meeting, written comments are accepted until June 30th. Here is a link with the address to send written comments via snail mail or e-mail <a href="http://www.boatoregon.com/News/2005/May26WillametteRiver.html" target="_blank">http://www.boatoregon.com/News/2005/May26WillametteRiver.html</a>

sunsport 06-14-2005 11:30 AM

Jayp, <BR>Nice work. Thanks for finding that! I will post the link on wakeboarder.com also. Or you can if you want. <BR> <BR>Skiing made me board, <BR>Lyle <BR>Chrome Dome Industries

fifitrixabelle 06-14-2005 11:59 AM

I will try my hardest to be there. We need some ideas from all wakeworlders of points to bring up to stop this action. Man, I'd sure like to drive figure 8's in front of his dock!

flux 06-14-2005 1:15 PM

The biggest thing to do is understand what really is doing the damage to the riverfront properties. <BR> <BR>What about <BR> <BR>The current!!!!! <BR>Wind chop <BR>Large boat traffic <BR>Overall boat traffic <BR> <BR>Wakeboard boats generally a weekend and evening thing?? Only limited months of the year for wakeboarding boats?? Suggestions for folks not driving close to shore and making rollers?? <BR> <BR>Seems to me some guy who lives on the bank had his shore eroded over a period of years and had to fix and got mad because a wakeboard boat went by and threw a big roller his way, he started griping to the neighbors and they started griping too. <BR> <BR>Without statistical data on seawall and dock repairs over a long period of time in comparison to wakeboarding and the proliferation of giant wakes it's kind of proofless assertion. <BR> <BR>They also seem to be encouraging faster travel through the area to lessen the wakes, that decreases safety. A wakeboard boat displaces about 1.5 to 2 times the water of a similar boat at similar speed. Now go see how many boats weighing 5-7000 pounds use that river area, I bet it's alot. So should they encourage these boats to go WOT through this area just to appease a few folks that had to do maintenance on their property. <BR> <BR>Ask them politely to please show some data on boat traffic and the effects of riverbank erosion. Then ask them to please show the section where the y compare the water displacement of a dozen or so boats over a large speed range. <BR> <BR>I ride a little mudpuddle down here in Socal. During the morning it's usually just the boarders and some skiers and we are all trying to stay out of each other's way. The water calms down pretty darn quick, basically as soon as the roller passes. Later in the afternoon when everyone gets their boats fired up the lake is quickly a mess. It takes about half an hour to an hour when they all clear off for the energy to be dissapated. Seems to me it's more of an overall traffic thing. Throw in the wind and you have windchop also aggravating the water. Ask them if the shore area where most complaints are coming from is the shore that is exposed to the wind, where the chop would end up. It's about energy, it takes power to erode, I just can't see how a bunch of boats could even compete with the power of an entire river. <BR> <BR> <BR>Hope my random thoughts help, I would hate to see a presedence set where we lose our right to make our wakes the way we want. It could start in Oregon and end up down here.

98_searay 06-14-2005 1:16 PM

bring up the idea that people travel to wakeboard and that it will take money away form the community. and the new people who want to move who board will not buy houses in the area beacuse of the law no wake enhancing devices or v-drives boats less and less people will be visiting the lake. <BR>-alex- <BR>just some thought!

jdrcrew8 06-14-2005 2:10 PM

This is my first post so I will apologize ahead of time if it is too long. I grew up in Oreogn though and this is pissing me off. <BR> <BR>While impassioned response is going to be all of our first impulses it is pretty important to really respond to this with logical arguments. <BR> <BR>The state seems to be truly considering this as an option, based on this guy's contraption that supposedly measures wakes that was put together with gum and duct tape. This would set a bad precedent that would basically make every navigable waterway in Oregon a no-wake zone. <BR> <BR>I am unable to attend tonight's meeting in LO but will prepare written comments whigh for me is probably better anyway. Public speaking is not my strongest asset and I would probably get caught up by the emotion of it all. <BR> <BR>The arguments I think need to be made against: <BR> <BR>-I have already looked at the Oregon Revised Statutes (available online) and under Chapter 830.110 Powers and duties of the board are listed 19 primary functions of the Oregon State Marine Board. In reading these responibilities it doesn't appear that they have the ability to do this legally and a couple of times seems to suggest the opposite. For example: <BR>830.110 (6)STUDY, PLAN AND RECOMMEND THE DEVELOPMENT OF BOATING FACILITIES THROUGHOUT THE STATE WHICH WILL PROMOTE THE SAFETY AND PLEASURE OF THE PUBLIC THROUGH BOATING. <BR>830.110 (15) INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS TO ENJOIN UNLAWFUL OBSTRUCTIONS INJURING FREE NAVIGATION ON THE WATERS OF THIS STATE. <BR> <BR>The last one is kind of a stretch but I don't think there is any doubt that this would "injure free navigation on the waters of this state". <BR> <BR>-This regulation would basically mean no watersports could be conducted SAFELY (the board will eat that up!) within these two miles of the lower river. Think about the person pulling either a wakeboard or tubes. You want to be on plane but to really flatten out the wake on my X-10 I have to get up to approx. 30 MPH. Can you imagine wakeboarding that fast or a father pulling a kid or kids on tubes that fast to flatten out his wake along this stretch of river. <BR> <BR>-While I can't seem to find the documentation regarding the issue that I am looking for, I know that the Willamette is classified a navigable river, meaning that access to the river bed and banks cannot be restricted up to the high water mark. Why would the state restrict activities for commerce or recreation along this stretch of the river for the benefit of the very small portion of the population that has riverfront property. I may be mistaken but the state has allowed these property owners private access to public property by allowing them to place docks above the publicly accessible river bed. That may come with some maintenance consequences as a price for the convenience of private access. <BR> <BR>Sorry again for the long post. Just what I consider to be appropriate talking points regarding this issue to be discussed to stop this ridiculous regulation. <BR> <BR>

flux 06-14-2005 3:33 PM

If this wake measuring device only measures height, it's a complete fraud. While this might be accurate in ascertaining the relative height of a surface bound wave (wake), it would not measure the energy or width of the wave. <BR> <BR>What about displacement that is under the water?? Like a Tsunami type wave that only begins to crest when it reaches shallow water. <BR> <BR>Bryans points above are extremely valuable to anyone opposing these restrictions. Like he said, if they have a dock that makes it impossible to navigate that stretch along the shore, they are doing so illegally, or moreso they are not being cited for such. If they decide to have a law changed that prohibits wakeboarders from damaging their illegal docks, then they are out of their minds. <BR>

du540 06-14-2005 3:50 PM

Am I wrong in thinking that this would kinda be like me building a deck off my house that extended INTO the (public) street...then getting pissed when it's damaged by people driving by?

jdrcrew8 06-14-2005 4:13 PM

Very good analogy. <BR> <BR>These people should have some expectation to avoid purposeful damage (think riders sliding <BR>their docks!) but should not have absolute protection from long-term damage caused by normal river usage. <BR> <BR>If I implied the docks were illegal, I apologize. I believe permission has to be gained from the OSMB to have a dock. They probably pay some fees for them too which is why they are bent! I though, see a dock as a privilege not a right since these property owners can't restrict public use of river bed or bank up to the "normal high water mark".

socalwakepunk 06-14-2005 4:34 PM

Waterfront property owners have to assume responsiblity for their own property. Another analogy is a homeowner who builds on a questionably unstable, but panaoramic hillside, then expects the city/county/state to be responsible for repairs when the hill gives and his house is destroyed. If the governing authority gives in to this proposal, they might as well write the owner a check now for any damages incurred by anything, natural or man made. This owner needs to be responsible for his own property. <BR> <BR>(Message edited by socalwakepunk on June 14, 2005)

tyler97217 06-14-2005 4:49 PM

Some great points are made in the last few posts. I have already sent an email and the guy responded and is receptive to our side. Here is his email. Send it on to him.... <BR>Randy Henry <BR><a href="mailto:Randy.H.Henry@state.or.us">Randy.H.He nry@state.or.us</a> <BR>Policy &amp; Planning Coordinator <BR>Oregon Marine Board <BR><a href="http://www.boatoregon.com" target="_blank">www.boatoregon.com</a> <BR>(503) 373-1405 x240

orgborn 06-14-2005 4:53 PM

They need to be more concerned with cleaning up the river rather than the few docks that are being damaged.

nautyboy 06-14-2005 5:11 PM

I have been fighting the same battle at my marina. We used to be able to ski/wakeboard anywhere on the marina. Now it’s down to two little areas, and they are trying to get rid of those too! Bottom line is this, the people who have docks are responsible for constructing them in a way which can withstand normal hydrodynamic forces (wakes, waves, tidal currents, water level fluctuations, etc.). Maintenance and repairs should be anticipated. If there are water sport / high speed boating activities near your dock, you should budget additional monies for the added maintenance and repairs. If the owner’s of docks can not accept this, they are just plain stupid and should move inland. <BR> <BR>This reminds me of the rich jerks that live on the beach and try to limit the public’s access to the ocean. These types of people are totally self-centered, greedy, lonely SOBs! <BR>

tyboarder03 06-14-2005 9:24 PM

Diggs <BR>When you have a chance I'd love to read the email that Randy sent back to you, just to see what he thinks...

ltw235 06-15-2005 1:05 PM

Bryan, <BR> <BR>The documentation tracing the establishment of the Willamette River as a navigable waterway can be traced to the 1870 United States Supreme Court case The Daniel Ball 77 U.S. 557 (1870). This case established the definition of "navigable waterway" that has been used for the last 135 years. Essentially, the Willamette became a navigable waterway the moment that Oregon joined the United States. There are many subsequent Oregon cases that state the Willamette is a navigable waterway. If you need me to send you a citation for a case, let me know.

tyboarder03 06-15-2005 1:35 PM

So does anyone who attended want to give us all a little update on how the meeting went last night?

sunsport 06-15-2005 1:53 PM

Well the public forum went fairly well last night. I wanted to say thanks to Collin, Ron, Chris, Kendall, Matt, and everyone else that is in the wakeboarding/waterskiing community for showing up and representing. It was kind of funny because they let people talk in the order they got there. So of course the old farts that are really pushing this thing talked first. As people got up and spoke their mind it became aparent there were more people against the measure than for it, and with this the foundation for the measure started to crack. I think we have a good chance at beating this thing, but it sure would help if you guys can send emails in also, because what happens now is last nights meeting gets transcribed all of the emails and letters that are sent in are tallied and presented to the Oregon State Marine Board on June 30th. I am not exactly sure who they are, but that group of people (I think 5-12 people) then decide if a law needs to be made. My only hope is that not too many of them are older people on the water who are constantly sustaining damage to their docks. If that is the case we could be screwed. <BR> <BR>As mentioned above the email address is <a href="mailto:Randy.H.Henry@state.or.us">Randy.H.He nry@state.or.us</a> <BR> <BR>Here is the letter my sister wrote in <BR> <BR>Hello Randy- <BR> <BR>I just read about this proposed law to manage wakes on the Willamette. <BR>I wanted to let you know that often times, I am on the river in this exact section with my family (husband, 75-year old mother-in-law and two small children) in our boat and I have never noticed a problem with too big of wakes. <BR> <BR>Wanted to give my input, that I don't think this law is neccessary. <BR> <BR>Thanks, <BR>Maria <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.boatoregon.com/News/2005/May26WillametteRiver.html" target="_blank">http://www.boatoregon.com/News/2005/May26WillametteRiver.html</a> <BR> <BR> <BR>Skiing made me board, <BR>Lyle <BR>Chrome Dome Industries

tyler97217 06-15-2005 2:38 PM

Tyler- <BR>Sorry I missed your post earlier... Here is the email conversation.... <BR>FROM THE GUY AT OSMB <BR> <BR>All excellent points. I will include it in the public record. Thank you for your comments. <BR> <BR>|-------------------------------------------------------------| <BR> ...Dedicated to safety, education and <BR> access in an enhanced environment. <BR>|-------------------------------------------------------------| <BR>Randy Henry <BR><a href="mailto:Randy.H.Henry@state.or.us">Randy.H.He nry@state.or.us</a> <BR>Policy &amp; Planning Coordinator <BR>Oregon Marine Board <BR><a href="http://www.boatoregon.com" target="_blank">www.boatoregon.com</a> <BR>(503) 373-1405 x240 <BR> <BR>Hi Randy, <BR>I am unable to attend the meeting tonight and wanted to thank you for taking this letter in as a substitute. <BR>I am writing in opposition to some proposed ideas for limiting wake size on the Willamette River. I can surely understand the need to have better signage or information for some of the inconsiderate or uneducated boaters that use that part of the Willamette River that might be passing too close to docks. As we all know there are many inconsiderate boaters out there, but that does not make it right to pick on specific boats. I own a ski/wakeboard boat and have spent hundreds of hours on the Willametter River. I am a very considerate boater for local homeowners as well as other boaters. It is just not fair to enact legislation that could punish people that are considerate. Not to mention the $50,000 investments that we have made to spend time on the PUBLIC waterways. <BR>I have spent many years on the water and living on the water and the fact is that you have more maintenance to deal with when you live on the water. That is part of living on a PUBLIC waterway. Any people that are that strongly opposed to this should be looking for a home that is in a more clearly posted no wake zone, or a home on the Tualatin River, or a pond, or similar waterway that does not experience these wakes. Heck I have been on the Willamette in bad weather when the wind and currents are producing as much chop and pounding waters of any boat that might throw out a wake. <BR>In Conclusion, I might be a little selfish and don't want to lose one of the things many of us Oregonians enjoy the most, and that is the Willamette River. The people that have proposed such legislation are 100% selfish and want to steal these PUBLIC waterways for themselves. I think there is a happy median that the OSMB can enact by educating boaters, all denominations of boats, to be more considerate as well as potential homeowners of the inherent risks they are taking when they live on the water. Everyone knows you will be adopting more maintanence and different issues when you move to a water front property! <BR> <BR>On a side note.... Is it possible to enforce this? How do you plan to educate boaters of this type of legislation without blindly ticketing them? How can you possibly measure the size of these wakes? How can you prove a valid measurement? <BR> <BR>Thanks for taking the time to read this and keeping our waterways PUBLIC in Oregon so we can all enjoy the river! <BR> <BR>

tyboarder03 06-15-2005 11:01 PM

Lyle <BR>Thanks a lot for posting that (nice email by the way) I'm glad to hear that the meeting went fairly well for all those opposing this legislation. I know I will definitely be sending Randy an email, and even for those not from this state I hope you guys do the same. <BR> <BR>Tyboarder03 <BR><a href="http://www.organicride.com" target="_blank">www.organicride.com</a>

fox 06-16-2005 7:12 AM

I think that this is a terrible excuse for the exclusion of some, however, property owners should expect reasonable protections as well. It sounded, from the article, that the big problem was "cruisers" and tour boats. They seem to neame them specifically and really only mentioned wakeboarders. That's probabaly because we are the only people who purposely and intentionally increase the size of our wakes. I do support your efforts to keep Public waterways just that.1 <BR> <BR>As a property owner on a lake, I admit to getting really peeved when I see people not following the rules which includes no wake past our house. I recognize though, that there are a lot of boats on our lake, and many more pontoons cruise by loaded with people and I/O's off plane and zig-zagging around with a tuber. Those contribute more to bank erosion as a collective group. Heck one offplane I/O throws a better wake than my 92 SN. As a boarder an a waterfront owner, I have a pretty unique perspective. Having alternative ideas will certainly net you better results in your campaign. <BR> <BR>Oh and Pork Chops, you already do foot the bill for the hillside people you mention, as well as the hurricane people who continue to live in those areas. FEMA foots a significant portion of the bill for those events. I am not criticizing them for living there, they are beautiful areas to live in...just don't be surprised that occasionally Mother Nature will throw you a fastball. <BR> <BR>Eric

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 3:24 AM.