Another ballast ban, is there any actual data

A lake near me (Candlewood lake in Ohio) is having a board meeting tonight to discuss banning ballast tanks on wakeboarding boats. I don't know what the actual wording is as I have only heard about this, its not a lake I've ever been to but my lake often takes cues from it, so it has me worried.

The claim is that wakeboarding boats are causing erosion and damaging property, I was wondering if anyone has any factual evidence, any data, any studies done to disprove this. I know these threads pop up every few months and I've looked through older ones but found nothing. The arguements that I have so far are:
1. Get a larger or at least more vocal group of people at the meeting to protest the proposalw
2. I/O's plowing can put off just as big a wake if not bigger
3. Erosion effects are cumulative so in the whole scheme of things, the amount caused by limited wakeboarding is a small % compared to many more smaller waves from tubers, jet skiers, wind etc.
4. Argue that runoff and sediment into the lake is far more damaging than erosion anyway and should be the primary focus
5. Unless you put a boat capacity limit you could always fill the boat up with lead, people, or something else instead (wouldn't want to argue this one, just something to get around it after the fact)
6. Live bait wells are technically ballast (again after the fact, you could argue that you are being discriminated against for violating the rules when every fishing boat gets a pass - does nothing to help you just makes a mess of the situation)

I need something better, any ideas are appreciated.

I believe waterskier.com or some website like that has a huge list of facts that you can use to debate this.

These *may* be of use, especially the first one. I know of it having been referenced at at least 2 lake association meetings.

Lake Associations and Us
http://www.wakeboardreport.com/archives/2006/09/lake_associations.html

A Few Thoughts on Wakesurfing, Before We're All Called to the Principal's Office
http://www.wakeboardreport.com/archives/2008/02/a_few_thoughts_on_wakesurfing.html

What about the citizens landscaping their property? Wouldn't this itself lead to more erosion? Just throwing it out there hopefully someone else can refine what I am trying to say....(just about quitin time!)
Ex.
UP here in MN( at least my area) there is an issue with green alge bloom. Many people have said problem is from runoff, not being "hung up " and caught in what used to be wetlands, now is sandy lake shore.

One thing not in consideration...How large/small is the lake?

Is it really populated?

I can't remember what his name on the site is, but look in the wake surfing for a guy named Ed Sullivan. I know that he has posted some information about this in the past. I will see if I can dig up his info so you can send him a PM.

JB, I just sent you a pm

Check out PDXwake.com also -- there are updates about the Oregon State Marine Board (OSMB) and testing of the effects of wakeboarding boat wakes along the Willamette River.

Thanks guys, here is the actual proposal, it has been tabled for a month giving guys a chance to counter it.
No member or associate member shall operate a boat that creates or causes to create the following conditions:

1. As the speed of a boat is increased, the bow rises, causing the stern to plow through the water. Maintaining this state without transitioning to plane creates the largest wake and has the potential for the most damage to the shoreline area. Therefore, plowing for an excessive time is prohibited. Plowing for more than one minute will be considered excessive although a lesser period may qualify under certain circumstances. No boat shall be operated in such a matter as to obstruct the vision of the operator or create an unusually high or hazardous wake.

2. The use of all wake-enhancing devices is prohibited. This includes devices that add weight to boat including but not limited to water or sand filled bags, bladders, balllast, and the use of wedges, power fins, or homemade devices.

Looks like they covered their bases pretty well. Again the biggest thing is to try to garner support against it, second there is nothing that actually proves bigger wakes are causing any damage, why ban something based on heresay or conjucture. There has to be some way to prove that runoff, wind, cumulative waves do far more damage than wakes.

#1 sounds more targeted to wakesurfing. People have different views of what is on/off plane.

you could do a petition and take it to the meeting. or fax it to them. set it out at the local shops. add my name to it if you do.

all of the fishermen's live wells on their boats should be considered ballast too then.

if you get that thrown in there they would help you fight it, instead of probably being the ones pushing for it.

Sometimes i worry about POWELL calling this crap on the wake boarders. Lake Powell can get pretty strict sometimes. But i am pretty sure it will NEVER happen. If it ever does, it will be a day that the tour boats go too. those tour boat waves are absolutely HUGE!!

they have managed to attack wake surfing though with the "no being closer than 20 ft thing" but thats to protect from CO poisoning... which powell has a lot of and they confuse tiki surf with wake surf. ohh well.


sorry for the slight off tangent post

Alan, the way it is worded it prohibits "wake enhancing devices" not ballast in general, so I don't think it will help. I had considered that one too.

You might mention that erosion is a risk when people buy lake front property. That's why owners build seawalls. See if you can get some local youth groups behind you and high-ranking church members. Inform them that wakeboarding is healthy and keeps kids out of trouble and a seawall will prevent erosion. That is one well-written proposal so you need some local support, especially high ranking community leaders. Good luck and let us know how the fight turns out.

on malibu's, how will they know if a power wedge is up or down?

where does that leave tige's and the TAPS system?

Also on the older malibu's, they don't have a ballast gauge, so they only way they could check is to have you turn the switch to drain. I think the best thing to do would be to have hidden weight, and no visible gauges or switches.

i guess you could always pile 8-10+ people in the boat. better yet, get a malibu 247 or and x45 and put 16 people in it

i think this is just stupid! its a bunch of fishermen that are pissed off cause they're not catching anything while we're having fun sending them for a ride on huge rollers. I really hope that they're are some guys who understand and enjoy wakeboarding on that board for the lake.

This is coming up more and more. someone should do a study on the shore of radar lake, showing pics and measurements and any other evidence that proves how much erosion is occuring on that lake and compare it to a private, restricted motor lake.

we just had to deal with this and fortunately it didnt get to a vote...

http://www.cincywake.com/forum/showthread.php?t=139

In a natural harbor or lake, over 97% of all wave energy will come from natural sources - the wind. Unless you have a specifically shaped lake (water ski tournament lake) the specific effects from boat wake over 200' from shore is irrevelent. I don't have the study any longer, but this has been concluded by the ACOE and the Canadian equivelent. If people have put up sheet piling or walls, the effects of those structures will magnify the effects of wave energy on the adjacent property and any property within about 700 feet opposite of the wall (reflections). Shorelines that have slopes steeper than 8:1 will naturally erode to 8:1 so a natural beach will form. Clays and roots will form a "cliff" until the shape is stabilized.

Most of the time the cause of the erosion is:

1. Poor shoreline design and management.
2. Seawalls.
3. Boat paths closer than 100' from shore.
4. Curved boat paths that constantly throw an outside wake close to shore (#3).

I have seen very few circumstances where the use of ballasted wakeboard boats have contributed meaningfully to erosion issues. The few times I have, the conditions existed before and the boats simply exposed the poor shoreline management practices of the property owners a year or two ahead of schedule.

LT Karl DeLooff (USCGR, former)
Port Operations Officer for several ports

Whenever I hear about lakes proposing these kind of bans, I always wonder how they can prove you've been using ballast if it's the internal kind. Most internal ballast tanks empty in just a couple of minutes, max. The Pro V empties its tanks in like 20 seconds, right? If you see the the lake cops coming your way, just flick the switch and let it drain out. If they pull up beside you before all the water is done draining out, just tell them you took on a little water over the bow and you're bilge is pumping it out. Or, like several people said above, if you've got the wedge, TAPS or no visible gauges, there's just no way for them to find out. Besides, most boat cops that I've run into know close to nothing about all the wake-enhancing features built into modern wakeboard boats. The fat sacks I have in my boat are have back rests on them and most non-wakeboarders think they are just filled with air to provide extra seating on each side of the engine. It just seems like there are so many ways to get around these kind of bans, especially with how ignorant most people are of modern wakeboard boats and wake-enhancing devices.

lead under the floor.

if these people really want to get wakeboarders out of their area all they have to do is build a bunch of seawalls... nobody want to ride w/ a bunch of rollers coming back into the middle of the lake each pass... aside from that distance from shore not original size has more to do w/ the size of the roller hitting the shore than anything... any assertion otherwise is dumb and misguided... a wake created closer to the shore will have a greater amplitude and velocity than a larger wake created further from shore... the main factors of a wake causing any "damage" or "erosion" would simply have to be the velocity and amplitude of that wave am i correct? might have to consult a seismologist (i know you so cal folks know what that guy does) but that's what i gather from what they do

my (keep up w/ me here) sister's b/f's mom says she hate those "wakesking" boats (she tells me... before i grind her metaphorically into coffee and put her in the can)as me and my parents are visiting their lake house on a holiday... she said that and my mom gave me the don't you do it look and... of course... i sat in to telling her that her assertion that it was wakeboarding or "wake" boats making her dock rock and shake was NOT b/c of the wakeboats that went by fairly often but instead it was the D.A. out there in a '88 bayliner pulling kids in circles setting off huge dumpers each time he cut the wheel going 15 mph that was making her dock shake and the wakeboats were nothing compared to her neighbors 25' deckboat coming into dock (appropiate timing) as the wakeboats were peeled back doing about 30 mph w/ obviously no ballast loaded and the SANs and Moombas that over ran that lakes wakeboat population (sorry i'm a MC guy) looked more like a tournament ski boat going down the water w/ no ballast filled in the at those speeds not to mention they were at least 1/4 mi from her dock... i kind of felt bad but i just find it hard to sit in one place and let someone be so ignorant

(Message edited by wakex2wake on July 31, 2008)

(Message edited by wakex2wake on July 31, 2008)

Just fill your back compartments with cement and then boat carpet on top of that so it looks like a really small compartment.

I'd just show up with my boat at full capacity. Get the biggest and fattest friends I have to go with me. Wonder if too many people resort to this if they'll try to ban fat people too.