Name:   Crimson4Lif - Subject:   Attention water patrol Date:   6/4/2019 3:30:11 PM

It's amazing at some of the replies in this thread.  Which by the way was not needed by any means.  The message was hopeful for someone in law enforcement to respond and clear up.  

* That bridge has been there for umteen years and the shoreline looks the same on both sides as it does the day it was built.  Hell the island it goes to is majority rock so it aint going anywhere.  That is a complete lame excuse to put in no wake.  100 ft is a little over 30 yds.  That opening through there is waaaayyyy over 60 yds wide.   I guess the 200 boats that go by the rock area on a daily basis do no damage to the shoreline but the ones on the back side of the rock do.  Yea right.

* Also since that bridge has been put up...how many accidents have happened at the bridge because of the bridge?  Answer: 0   Again a lame excuse to make everyone slow down.

* Speed is not a factor in that straight away.  To say we need smaller motors because there is a bridge across the water is insane.  But every one is entitled to their opinion and I guess you felt yours was needed.  You can go through 3 separate parts of the bridge with plenty of depth and room.  Been through there several weekends of the summer with several boats going each way and we have always seemed to manage fine.  Speed has never been a problem.  Smaller motors...yea thats the answer.  Geez

* Getting somewhere on the lake is usually not that big of deal for most so the comment about being in a rush is again someone just piping off about nothing.  My pontoon does 25 mph top end and I still dont want to stop and putt putt for over 200 yds for no reason.  

The point of the original question was you have a couple hundred boats in the front channel going all directions by the rock, yet now you want to direct more traffic that way.  Saw it this weekend....hardly 1 or 2 boats going thru the back channel which is normally loaded with boats and now everyone going in front of the rock.  If you want to put a no wake area up, the front of the rock is where it needs to be.  None of the reasons listed is anything but opinion.  I was looking for the LEGAL REASON.  If there is some distance guideline then I guess the ALEA is open for a lawsuit for letting the bridge go for about 10 to 15 years without a no wake zone.  Its pretty clear this was knee jerk reaction to the accident but I wanted ALEA to clear up the confusion.