Why does Supra suck so bad?

Supra is running our sport through the mud. They are trying to lump us in with Teak Surfing. Everybody should keep posting comments on Supra's website until they change what they have about wakesurfing on thier saftey page.

Supra doesn't suck it just sounds like what most other companies say. All they say is how wake surfing is the NEWEST danger. Teak surfing I think is dangerous, and i wont do it nor will I allow people to do it on my boat. As mentioned in earlier posts, its not really a safe practice to have people on the teak or fiberglass while the engine is running due to the fumes sent out by the engine. In that case when I wakesurf, I am usually atleast 2 to 3 feet away from the back of the boat. I wouldn't hate on SC for this, its just a small warning for any new boat owner to know what theyre doing before they go grabbing onto the teak or checkin the prop while the engines running. Not a huge deal IMO.
~Tyler~

Quote from Supra's website.

Tow boat drivers need to be especially aware of the carbon monoxide exposure risks related to “wake surfing” and “teak surfing.” “Teak surfing” involves hanging onto a swim platform while the boat is in motion. “Wake surfing” involves riding a board in close proximity to the transom or swim platform of a boat. Both are extremely dangerous activities that should not be permitted on your boat or anyone else's boat! People who “teak surf" or "wake surf” too close to the boat are directly exposed to high concentrations of deadly carbon monoxide fumes in the engine’s exhaust, which can kill or incapacitate someone after just a few breaths.

Now I have been wakesurfing for a few years now. I have come close to the boat and and have not been "incapacitated" or "killed" due to CO.T}o say "after a few breaths" please, maybe if you were taking bong rips right out of the exhaust pipe you might get a headache. By no means I am putting Supra boats down but come on, some over zealous legislative bureaucrat will read that and try and end the sport. That is my 2 cents.
Board More/Work Less!
J$

...cue the forum Chicken Littles.

Supra has the following posted on their website:

“In addition, these people are very close to the spinning propeller underneath the boat, which can kill or seriously injure them if they slip or get pulled beneath the swim platform. The US Coast Guard recommends to remain (sic) more than 20 feet behind a moving or running watercraft in any towing water sport activity.”

These statements are specious and dangerous to the sport of wake surfing. This 20’ rule crap nearly got wake surfing outlawed in California and is currently threatened in Arizona and Pennsylvania. Testing by the Centers for Disease Control and Fresh Air Exhaust clearly show that wake surfing is a relatively safe sport from the standpoint of carbon monoxide (CO). People in the rear of a slow moving boat are generally exposed to far higher levels of CO than are wake surfers. Maybe we should outlaw no wake zones.

By my estimates (and I would love for someone with greater knowledge on the subject to help with the calculations) when a wake surfer falls, there is approximately 800 pounds of force from the water preventing even the remote possibility of moving forward into the propeller.

I think the wake surf community should conduct a letter/email writing campaign to Surpa requesting that they change the language in their website and other literature.

Note: While the evidence shows that wake surfers are generally exposed to relatively low levels of CO, there are scenarios where the wake surfer, due to wind direction and speed, can receive elevated levels of CO. There have been anecdotal reports of people reporting CO exposure symptoms following wake surfing (headache, nausea, vomiting).

Larry Mann
Fresh Air Exhaust

It’s just a warning letting owners and others know about hidden dangers that come with wake surfing & teak surfing so they don’t receive any legal repercussions. Just like McDee’s putting “Caution: Contends maybe HOT!” on their coffee cups or GM putting warning signs near air bags warning people of their hidden dangers.

You don’t bash Hyperlite for their warning saying “USE THIS PRODUCT ONLY ON WATER”; so please don’t run Supra or any other boat manufacture name in the mud for doing what just about every company has to do in this world because some people don’t use common sense.

MIKE you asked, “Why dose Supra suck so bad?” I don’t know, maybe you should ask why a company that prides them self with building a quality luxury tow boat that gained more market share than any other boat manufacture last year would suck bad enough to want to let all their customers and others know about this danger after we have already lost a few fellow wakesurfers to this… Come on...

This reminds me of the old guy who won a lawsuit against Winnebago for millions because he flipped his RV after setting his cruise control and getting up and going to the back to make something to eat while running down the Hwy at 65mph. Come on…


(Message edited by jamie lamar on November 03, 2005)

I talked with a PI attorney about the warning issue and his comment was he was surprized at how little there was in the way of warnings. He sent me the following quote taken from a product liability site:

"In the past, "buyer beware" was the prevailing legal notion. Current law, however, imposes strict liability on corporations or individuals who make defective products. Strict liability makes everyone involved in the making of consumer products potentially accountable for any resultant personal injury. It assumes that manufacturers and sellers must reasonably try to protect consumers, whether they do so by providing warnings when potential hazards accompany specific products or by ensuring that defective or malfunctioning parts are not used in their wares. Failure to do so can result in their being slapped with a product liability lawsuit.

When it comes to product liability law, any person or entity that does not provide reasonable care when it has the legal responsibility to do so can be found guilty of negligence. This includes inaction as well as careless and malicious action.

This can include everything from confusing, hard-to-follow instructions to incomplete warning labels, such as those on prescription drugs. Often, instructions are written at a 10th-grade level, while the majority of consumers read far below that. Simply revising the instructions so that they match those of newspapers which are written at a 6th-grade level could prevent thousands of injuries."

From a manufacturers standpoint, if you do nothing (inaction noted above) you can be found negligent. If you do "something" but it's not "dumbed-down" you can be found negligent. As Jamie points out, the warning label on coffee cups at McDonald's. At some point a jury and the various attorney's involved felt that the general consumer of coffee at McDonald's needed to be WARNED that the liquid inside the styrofoam cup was potentially dangerously hot. I couldn't even venture a guess as to the warnings that those folks feel would be needed on a boat.

Larry, I certainly appreciate your desire for advocacy for the sport. I am 100% in favor of that. Does anyone have any suggestions for wording that could be sent to Supra (6th grade reading level, of course ) Or is the position/general consensus, there is NO danger in wakesurfing and so it should be excluded altogether in Supra's warnings?

http://www.supraboats.com/safety_labels.html

Apparantly I was wrong about the warning labels. On their web site there is an idication that they have no less than 4 warning stickers on their V-drives that caution the boat occupants of "! DANGER Carbon monoxide and propellor hazard. Do not operate engine while anyone is on or about the swim platform or in the water near the boat. Owners and operators must read and understand all product warnings and manuals before use." I believe they indicated there were 9 warning stickers (on various potential hazards) in total.

Maybe the Supra idiots have been reading Jeff Walker's silly claims that equate swim deck starts with teak surfing...

Chicken Littles uber alles.

Wow, justsomeguy, that was really enlightening.

Just the facts Mann.

Your customer Jeff has claimed that teak surfing and a swim deck start carry the same risks (Jeff "Chicken Little" Walker re: swim deck starts: "It will be someone with a death wish, with a total selfishness, such as the behavior described here, that gets maimed or killed in California and causes the legislature to ban our sport.").

Maybe you should talk to your customer since his
statements "are specious and dangerous to the sport of wake surfing" not to mention seriously misguided.

I was of the belief that the whole McD's coffee thing was overblown, but I wanted to just be fully informed, so looked into it. It would seem that for a company the size of McD's that it's hard to adequately "punish" them OR from a cost containment standpoint it's just cheaper for them to pay the attorney's fees/salaries and settlements. I would presume that Supra isn't in the same annual dollar sales volume as McDonald's, so perhaps it's just good business for them to err on the side of caution?

For your reading enjoyment, re McD's.

http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

Everyone knows what you're talking about when you mention "the McDonald's lawsuit." Even though this case was decided in August of 1994, for many Americans it continues to represent the "problem" with our civil justice system.
The business community and insurance industry have done much to perpetuate this case. They don't want us to forget it. They know it helps them convince politicians that "tort reform" and other restrictions on juries is needed. And worse, they know it poisons the minds of citizens who sit on juries.

Unfortunately, not all the facts have been communicated - facts that put the case and the monetary award to the 81-year old plaintiff in a significantly different light.

According to the Wall Street journal, McDonald's callousness was the issue and even jurors who thought the case was just a tempest in a coffee pot were overwhelmed by the evidence against the Corporation.

The facts of the case, which caused a jury of six men and six women to find McDonald's coffee was unreasonably dangerous and had caused enough human misery and suffering that no one should be made to suffer exposure to such excessively hot coffee again, will shock and amaze you:

McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

The most important message this case has for you, the consumer, is to be aware of the potential danger posed by your early morning pick-me-up. Take extra care to make sure children do not come into contact with scalding liquid, and always look to the facts before rendering your decision about any publicized case.

700 incidents of coffee burns in ten years of selling $1,000,000,000 in coffee a year.

If that is the standard, your wakeboard will be outlawed.


SD2

P.S. cold coffee is crap.

If McDonald's is so malicious, how come no criminal charges were filed?

It's unfortunate that people have to turn to the civil justice system to make up for a complete lack of common sense...

With that in mind, I am going to go turn the stove on and press my face against the burners to see if they are hot. There are no stickers warning me not to do so...

So I finally got around to sending an request for clarification to Supra using their site's info request. I'll also send an actual letter on the American Wakesurfing Associations letterhead and an email with the same basic info within the week.

This is what I asked, or will be asking:

In reviewing your site under the safety link I see that you indicate wakesurfing is dangerous. I just wanted to make sure that you folks were aware of the NASBLA's revision to it's model act for safe practices for boat-towed watersports, passed on 9/15/05 which recognized that wakesurfing was not the danger originally thought. If you would be so kind as to respond to me, I would greatly appreciate it. It would appear that your comments are merely outdated.

I'll keep you folks posted of any and all responses I get from Skier's Choice, Inc and Supra.

The text of my email to customer service, also included the model law attachment. I was unable to find any specific email addresses.

CC: posted to wakeworld.com Wakesurf forum and Wakesurf.net

As a safe boater and parent I do very much appreciate your recommendations on safe boating parctices, your concern over CO posioning and the many helpful safety recommendations contained on your site.

I am, however, distressed with one reference and I would like some clarification, if you would be so kind. On your site you make the following claim:

'Do not allow “wake surfing” and “teak surfing” on your boat! Several of the latest dangerous activities are “wake surfing” and “teak surfing”. “Wake surfing” involves riding a board in close proximity to the transom or swim platform of a boat.'

I most certainly agree with you that teak surfing is one of the most dangerous activities that can be undertaken behind a boat. Also, bodysurfing should be included in this reference, as the state of California and the NASBLA Committees on Law Enforcement and Boats and Associated Equipment have passed in their Model Law for Safe Boating Practices for Boat-Towed Watersports.

When the NASBLA passed this model law, they elimated any and all references to wakesurfing and narrowed the act to only teak surfing (platform dragging) and body surfing.

Would you be so kind as to clarify for me. Is Skier's choice indicating that body surfing isn't an issue but that wakesurfing is? Which would appear to be in contrast to the conclusions of the NASBLA, and all but one state in the US? Or is it possible that this portion of your site just needs to be updated for the revision to the NASBLA model law?

Thank you so much for your time and consideration

Respectfull submitted

Jeff Walker, CPA
President American Wakesurfing Association
7488 Shoreline Drive
Suite A-1
Stockton, CA 95219


My hope is that Supra just hasn't updated the text of their site in a few years and that this really isn't management's current position. Again, I'll post any and all responses I receive.

I did receive a very pleasant response from Mr. Littman. The text of that email follows. Not the response I was hoping for, but at the same time Mr. Littman wasn't closed minded either. I haven't drafted a response yet, but hopefully the folks at Supra will be willing to continue a dialog on the matter.

Jeff,

I'm Skier's Choice Marketing Director. As such, I have responded to several of Mike's notes. That said, safety decisions
are made by our owners: Brad Denning, Rick Tinker and Dan Miller. These decisions are driven by US Coast Guard and US Center for Disease Control guidelines. Please understand that safe boat operation is our primary concern.

We appreciate your input. Should there be a change in our current policy, I will post that change immediately to our website.


Michael Littman
Marketing Director


ps: I will review the 'body surfing' policy with ownership as well.

I got curious to see about other boats websites say.

First I went to Moomba's website, which has basically the same letter of course, except it hasn't been updated since 2003. (no surprise, I am not a skier's choice fan, I think most people on this board know that fact)

Next went to Malibu website, could not find any safety warning.

Next went to Tige' website, could not find any safety warning.

Next went to Mastercraft's website:

---

quote:

Avoid CO poisoning! Never drag within 20 feet behind a moving watercraft.

---

http://www.mastercraft.com/company/index.asp

Next was Nautique.
http://www.correctcraft.com/main.htm>Owner's Ramp>Notifications

IMO - Nautique said it the best and Mastercraft came in second. I would like to see Skier's choice use different words. The warning can be the same, just need to soften the words. Wakesurfing is a viable extreme sport that isn't going anywhere. They would be better off explaining how to do it in the safest way possible, rather than making it appear like an outlawed sport.

I am not sure how smart their marketing technique appears to be by eliminating a water sport with their current warning. If wakesurfing was an outlawed sport, like teak surfing is, then I could see using it. I believe Skier's choice is ignorant idiots. They are lucky most people ignore warnings and wakesurf behind their boats anyways. Just imagine if they put may be dangerous to wakeboard behind the boat'. Most of us would ignore it and those us who are extreme would boycott the boat.

Good Luck Jeff.

(Message edited by tcluv85 on December 12, 2005)

Hey Laci, long time! Tell me how this sounds as an opening to a letter:

Dear Mr. Tinker,

In my humble opinion, you are an ignorant idiot.

I know this sounds odd, but I really believe that the folks at Skier's Choice are genuinely concerned about the safety and well-being of their customers. I also do believe that the folks there haven't kept abreast of developments in this area. In the above email:

'These decisions are driven by US Coast Guard and US Center for Disease Control guidelines. '

The current findings by both agencies don't support the conclusions by Skier's Choice about wakesurfing. In fact that is why the NASBLA affected changes to the model law:

"This act originally was adopted by the membership of the National Association of State
Boating Law Administrators on Oct. 29, 2003. However, an original provision
prohibiting the use of a tow rope of 20 feet or less would have precluded the popular
sport of wake surfing. In response, during 2004, the NASBLA Committees on Law
Enforcement and Boats and Associated Equipment revised the language and narrowed
the act to apply to teak surfing (platform dragging) and body surfing – water sports that
pose potential dangers to the participant both because of proximity to the boat’s
propeller and because of the possibility of carbon monoxide poisoning. "

I respect the fact the Skier's Choice cares about the safety and well-being of it's customers. In this day and age of corporate irresponsibility SC, Inc. stands out. I also believe that in this situation, dealing with wakesurfing, management is misguided and hampered by misinformation. I'll bet in time things will change.

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff. How would you like it if I started a letter to you like that?

Dear Jeff... you are an idiot.

Sorry guys, but you are placing the blame on the wrong folks. Rick Tinker is not sitting down composing and writing this stuff.

I am a huge fan and friend of Skiers Choice management. Last summer, Skiers Choice's marketing manager and tech services manager came to my home town to help me put on the 1st annual moomba/supra owners jamboree. Skiers Choice is a very customer oriented and a very generous company.

The fellows who came down are themselves very much into all watersports and ex-competitors.

I have $5 that says paralegals working for Lawyers are the ones who draft the safety warnings.

Those warning don't bother us Moomba owners who are into wakesurfing. Why would it bother you?

I say get over it and go wakesurfing.

Ed Geary
(2005 Moomba/Supra Owners Jamboree Co-Ordinator)
Clermont, Fl

Hey Ed-

I think you should lighten up on Jeff. Clearly Jeff was joking in his post (note the smiley face). You probably don't know how close we came to seeing the complete ban on wakesurfing. Two years ago that's the direction it was heading. If it wasn't for the hard work of a very small group of people, you most likely wouldn't be wakesurfing (legally that is).

So why should those warning stickers bother us?

In my opinion, we are still in a delicate place with our new sport. Various factors could come in to play at anytime and put us back several years or take our sport away all together. Jeff takes a HUGE amount of his free time (and even travels at his own expense) to ensure that YOU have the legal right to wakesurf. To do this we need everyone in the wake sport arena to agree and present a unified message that wakesurfing is safe. As one of the faster growing wake boat manufactures, I believe we should all be concerned with the Skiers Choice position on wakesurfing as it is contrary to NASBLA and the Coast Guards finding.

Clearly, the CEO of Skiers Choice does not write copy for their website. I know that Jeff has been working to open lines of communications with the management of Skiers Choice, however, sometimes you have to go to the top of an organization to get things done.

maybe if you were taking bong rips right out of the exhaust pipe you might get a headache

CLASSIC!

I agree they should reword there label if it is causing people grief about wakesurfing.

Hey Ed, I think I have received letters and posts similar to what you suggest. Mark is right, it was sarcasm as indicated by the smiley and it was in response to Laci's post above where she stated:

"I believe Skier's choice is ignorant idiots."

Laci is a friend. I agree with you, it's simply not the way to communicate effectively with folks if the intent is serious. Both sides of the matter have been very professional in direct correspondence.

I agree with you and Mark that Mr. Tinker isn't writing web page content, but as Mr. Littman, Marketing Director of Skier's Choice, Inc. wrote and I posted above, Mr. Tinker does make the decision and his position is "DO NOT ALLOW wakesurfing" (see the supra links above):

"I'm Skier's Choice Marketing Director. As such, I have responded to several of Mike's notes. That said, safety decisions
are made by our owners: Brad Denning, Rick Tinker and Dan Miller. "

I am of the opinion that the shareholder's of Skier's Choice, Inc. are aware and take personal responsibility for the company they manage.

As Mark indicated, I am an advocate for the sport, personally and also as President of the American Wakesurf Association. I believe that every boat manufacturer's position needs to be taken seriously. In my opinion; Skier's Choice, Inc's statements aren't supportd by fact, aren't reflective of the conclusions of the NASBLA or the Coast Guard.

I do believe, as I stated above that the folks at Skier's Choice, Inc. are genuinely concerned about their customers. I also believe they are misinformed in this matter. I'm confident with time, Skier's Choice, Inc.'s management will hear our position and hopefully will modify the statements on the web site to more closely align to those expressed by the NASBLA in it's model law.

Jeff - I would help by writing a letter, but since I have a rather distaste for Skier's Choice form of business overall, I probably shouldn't help. I would send a letter with the first line being something like this....You ignorant idiots, what the **** are you thinking. Don't you know not to exclude groups of people in your marketing strategy.

I hope you succeed in dealing with them. Good Luck.

bsflower- Not that i really care that much... just curious as to why your not SC's biggest fan?
~Tyler~

I am probably going to be flamed or talked about, but whatever.

It goes way back and mainly to one dealership, but since Rick Tinker got in on it, I decided to be a 'hater' on SC.

I am a young single female who went to buy her first boat. I was told I was getting the best deal possible. So a couple of days later, a friend went down to the dealership and asked for a quote on the exact same boat (same options, colors, packages, etc) and he got a much lower price. Rick came onto wakeworld and gave me an explanation that didn't make sense. So I was bitter.

Then to further my distaste for SC, my friend bought an SSV from the same dealership (before he knew me) and has had nothing but headaches and has rec'd no support from SC. In fact, when he was getting his stereo put in by them, they dropped and broke the speaker and he had to fight with them to get the to pay for the new speaker. There is more to this story, but it isn't mine to tell.

So yes, I think it is a bad dealership, but the fact that SC doesn't step up bothers me. We have a decent MB Sports dealer, great Malibu dealer, awesome Nautique dealer and a fantastic MC/Centurion dealer close by, I see no need for anyone to ever get an SC. (Tige' is south and I have had no experience with them. I also haven't been to the Calabria dealer since the ownership changed, so I have no experience there either, but when I had my Calabria, Calabria was fantastic to work with, just not the dealer.)

So I am sure people will say get over it or it is just a bad dealership, but whatever it is how I feel. To me because I don't work on the boat myself, I rely heavily on the dealership, and I think we have some great ones around here, just not the SC dealer.

Thanks for the quick post, and sounds like you definitely have your reasons for distaste. I wouldnt be too stoked either, but I was just curious. Sooooo end of the thread jack.
~Tyler~

Jeff, no offense meant or taken. I understood it was sarcasm and I meant my opening statement to be friendly sarcasm also (I haven't gotten the hang of inserting a smiley face yet).

Got a great opportunity for you... when we have the next Moomba Jamboree, I am definetly going to have some type of wakesurfing clinic.

Care to be the wakesurfing instructor?

A couple of Skiers Choice upper echelon guys will be in attendance.

Make it a family vacation - Rat World is only 20 minutes away.

Ed G
Clermont, Fl (where a few people who can ride fairly well come from)

Hey Ed, Thanks for the invite. I'd love to attend. My son, James knows a thing or two about riding maybe I should bring him along too?



I'd appreciate any opportunity to affect positive change for the sport.

Regards

Jeff

I'd be disappointed if you didn't bring your son!

Hopefully Some of Skier Choice's Team riders will be at the jamboree again this year.

Josh Sanders and Russ Wilde were at the last one.

I'll keep you posted as to when and where. Last year the Jamboree was held May 16 at Lake Louisa State Park in Clermont, Fl.

e

Wait a minute, pause for a thread hijack. Bsflower- I can understand not liking SC because of poor service. Believe me, I completely 100% understand. But to knock a company becasue somebody got a better deal on a boat than you a couple of days later from the same dealership? I will pretty much guarantee you that all of us that have driven off the lot with a new vehicle have heard, "That's as low as I can go" or, "you are getting the best deal possible" or, "I have never sold a boat this cheap." If that were actually true, we would all have paid the exact same price for our boats... Sure, it initially stings a little bit, but that's just some more ammo for the next time you negotiate...

OK, sorry about that. Hijack off...

Mastercraft now offers a desktop photo for your computer that shows a wake surfer behind a Mastercraft. Yea Mastercraft.

I mentioned this to one of my friends who has an older Moomba (although you would never tell from all the customization he has done) and he said their letter could be a result of a lawsuit from something that happened here in Washington State, on Lake Tapps. Something about a little girl died somehow (claimed wakesurfing, but who knows) and the parents were suing Skier's Choice over it. Attorney's were calling my friend asking him to join in. He said no way. His guess is they weren't following guidelines and could have been teaksurfing...but she wasn't wearing a vest either....

Could be related or a cause there of....or completely unrelated.

I am told that...

Skiers Choice position on wakesurfing has to do with the 20 ft rule from the Coast Guard.

They never thought posting on safety would become a negative issue and they are looking into the posted wording.

Ed G
Clermont

Hey Ed, thanks for the update. That is great news.

Inasmuch as, there is no 20-foot rule promulgated or recommended by the Coast Guard (unless there is some contention between the CG and NASBLA that I am unaware of) I’m sure that we can look forward to some revised wording on Supra’s site. I think the confusion, most likely, stemmed from the change in wording by the NASBLA in their model law.

http://www.nasbla.org/pdf/Model%20Acts/new/Boat-Towed%20Watersports%2092105.pdf

As stated in the preface to that model law:

“This act originally was adopted by the membership of the National Association of State Boating Law Administrator’s on Oct. 29, 2003. However, an original provision prohibiting the use of a tow rope 20 feet or less would have precluded the popular sport of wakesurfing. In response, during 2004, the NASBLA Committees on Law Enforcement and Boats and Associated Equipment revised the language and narrowed the act to apply to teak surfing (platform dragging) and body surfing – water sports that pose potential dangers to the participant both because of proximity to the boat’s propellor and because of the possibility of carbon monoxide poisoning. The amended act was approved by the NASBLA membership on Sept. 15, 2004.”

In a related post here on Wakeworld.com, someone requested comment from the DBW in California. I think it is most eloquently put by Raynor Tsuneyoshi. Raynor Tsuneyoshi is the Director, Department of Boating and Waterways here in California. (http://www.dbw.ca.gov/) I think, arguably, the most restrictive state in this great country of ours. Also, California has adopted the NASBLA’s model law verbatim, I do believe.

http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/87668/180520.html?1095274797

"Just an FYI, I sent an email to Ray in CA and this was his rsponse..

Thank you for your concern. I assume the reason for your email to me was regarding the Assembly bill by Paul Koretz that deals with Carbon Monoxide poison prevention. You must have read an old article about this issue because our department along with boating organizations and industry have been working with the author of the bill and his staff to make sure it does not penalize an activity for which we can find no measurable instances of injury or fatality linked to carbon monoxide. We actually even consulted with the CDC (Center for Disease Control) who researched incidents that even remotely suggested that Carbon Monoxide poisoning was involved. We were unable to find any incidents where wake surfers or wake boarders suffered from this deadly gas.

As a result, we were able to convince the author to remove the sections that would have affected this type of activity.

Thank you again for your concern

Ray Tsuneyoshi"


Personally, I don’t think anyone feels negatively towards SC, Inc. for taking a stance on safety, only that there is misinformation contained in the specific text. I haven’t heard anyone mention anything negative about SC, Inc.'s corporate responsibility. I have, in fact, lauded them for this posture.

I would be happy if SC, Inc. revised it’s wording, in this regard, to something like: Despite findings to the contrary by the CDC, NASBLA, Coast Guard and most state regulatory authorities, Skier’s Choice, Inc. still maintains DO NOT ALLOW wakesurfing. In this way, it’s pretty clear that it’s not regulatory agencies, or recognized experts in the field of safety, but a personal issue that SC, Inc.’s shareholders feel the need to communicate to consumers.

Preferably, I would hope that SC, Inc. will follow the lead of the NASBLA and strike any reference to wakesurfing, and add references to body surfing.

That said, I am more than pleased that the shareholder's and management of SC, Inc. are genuinely making efforts to investigate this issue with a collective "open mind."

I received the attached letter from Mr. Brad Denning, CEO of Skier's Choice, Inc. today. (If there are any typo’s it’s no doubt my fault as I retyped it to post here) I am encouraged. Certainly they have made it clear they won't be held hostage or swayed from their position of directly communicating consumer safety. How can anyone NOT respect that? Mr. Denning has indicated affirmatively, that they will review their web site as he states, regarding the updated NASBLA revision: “We are more then happy to review our website safety-related information in light of this and other updated sources.” It is far short of them actually changing their web site, but, at least, it is an open dialog at this time. If anyone notes a change to referenced web page, I’d really appreciate being informed, maybe a post to this thread?



December 20, 2005

Mr. Jeff Walker
President
American Wakesurf Association
7488 Shoreline Drive, Suite A-1
Stockton, CA 95219


Re: Letter of December 8, 2005

Dear Mr. Walker

Thank you for your recent letter to Rick Tinker, which he has forwarded to me. Also, brought to my attention are your contacts via email with several employees at Skier’s Choice. If you haven’t received a quick and proper response in each instance, I hope this letter will suffice.

As a manufacturer, we are very concerned about any activity that takes place near the transom of a boat while the engine is running that can result in injury or loss of life. We attempt to educate and warn consumers and, in particular, our customers about various hazards near the transom, and especially so, when the hazard is less obvious.

There are many good sources of information and we appreciate you bringing to our attention the NASBLA Model Act with its most recent changes. We are more then happy to review our website safety-related information in light of this and other updated sources. If warranted, we will correct any misconceptions that might exist. However, any changes to our website that we may consider will not compromise our goal of communicating directly with consumers about unsafe and risky practices or activities.

Your efforts on behalf of the sport of wakesurfing are commendable and I hope that your association with Skier’s Choice develops. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact me or Rick.

Sincerely Yours,



Brad Denning
CEO
Skier’s Choice, Inc

That's why I'm proud to be a Moomba owner and I'll wear the logo for the rest of my life.



(Message edited by Ed G on December 29, 2005)

Ed, That is to good.

Doug

Wow!

"That's why I'm proud to be a Moomba owner and I'll wear the logo for the rest of my life. "

That is really sad.

LOL! thanks.