(Burnsville Lake Specific)
0 messages
Updated
Lakes Online Forum
84,091 messages
Updated 11/8/2024 10:28:12 AM
Lakes Online Forum
5,204 messages
Updated 9/14/2024 10:10:50 AM
(Burnsville Lake Specific)
0 messages
Updated
Lakes Online Forum
4,172 messages
Updated 9/9/2024 5:04:44 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,262 messages
Updated 11/6/2024 6:43:09 PM
Lakes Online Forum
2,979 messages
Updated 6/26/2024 5:03:03 AM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
|
|
|
| Name: |
fountain
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
100 Foot Restriction
|
|
Date:
|
6/2/2008 4:56:11 PM
|
Anyone heard any news???
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
100 Foot Restriction
|
|
Date:
|
6/2/2008 5:43:00 PM
|
It passed but still has to be signed by the Commissioner. Good luck with the Marine Police enforcing this rule. The way I read it they are going to have to tell me what is "outside normal traffic channels" and how are they going to prove that at any point you were within 100 feet. This is nearly unenforceable and will leave violations up to the discretion of the MP. If you want to fight a ticket I can't see how you would lose because unlike calibrated speed detection devices (radar, lasar, etc.) there is no way for them to prove in court you violated the law (except for channels less than 100' wide).
100-foot rule OK'd by CAB
Thursday, May 22, 2008
An item Alabama's Conservation Advisory Board approved on Saturday will affect folks in southwest Alabama in a big way if it is signed by conservation commissioner Barnett Lawley.
The 100-foot restriction for vessels operating on the state's waters is based on how close you can get to a whole menu of things before being required to reduce to idle speed.
The regulation basically prohibits operating a vessel "at a speed greater than idle speed within 100 feet of any vessel which is moored, anchored, or adrift outside normal traffic channels or any wharf, dock, pier, piling, bridge structure or abutment, person in the water or shoreline adjacent to a full-time or part-time residence, public park, public beach, public swimming area, marina, restaurant or other public use area."
|
| Name: |
DJ
-
|
|
| Subject: |
100 Foot Restriction
|
|
Date:
|
6/2/2008 5:57:32 PM
|
If there are docks on both sides with boats tie up to them the channel or slough would have to be over three hundred feet wide to be legal at a speed over idle, Yikes!!!!!!!!! Well I guess we will save some gas this way.
|
| Name: |
Mack
-
|
|
| Subject: |
"Common Courtesy"
|
|
Date:
|
6/2/2008 6:28:51 PM
|
Seems to me that this is an attempt to legislate behavior that should have been learned and practiced at an earlier age?? Prior generations??
100 feet may be an arbitrary number. But, driving a vessel at speed any closer than 100 feet of a dock, a downed skier, an anchored boat, a lone swimmer, and many other situations is simply "RUDE", not to mention the danger involved. Just dumb. But, it still happens every day on LM.
Just like it happens as "RoadRage in LA" or Birmingham, or at a restaurant, or WalMart, everywhere today. It is a symptom of the current time. "Get out of my way, I'm here to party, I am bulletproof, and, I DO NOT CARE".
And, the 100 foot law cannot be enforced.
"Just my opinion. I could be wrong"
|
| Name: |
Thomas Paine
-
|
|
| Subject: |
"Common Sense"
|
|
Date:
|
6/2/2008 8:18:14 PM
|
What possible justification could anyone have for driving any watercraft at plane speed within 100-feet of shoreline, dock, vessel, etc. anyway? I also think it would be easily enforced. Georgia has a similar regulation and has no trouble enforcing it. Remember, 100-feet is just a little more than from home to first base on a pro baseball diamond. We aren't talking about a huge distance here.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
100 Foot Restriction
|
|
Date:
|
6/2/2008 9:37:24 PM
|
Judges never think police will lie ... so if it comes down to one persons word vs the marine police ... it will always come down in favor of the MP. Just the way it works. But I hope it is enforced.
|
| Name: |
solvacc
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Exactly...Its Common Courtesy
|
|
Date:
|
6/2/2008 9:50:38 PM
|
Unfortunately, it had to be legislated because of the numerous violations. Like most laws, it will be used to reign in extreme violators, and hopefully prevent an accident from happening. I'm am curious, though, how it will affect skiing and wake boarding on the lake as some of the most popular spots are way back in the sloughs.
|
| Name: |
nelems,robert
-
|
|
| Subject: |
100 Foot Restriction
|
|
Date:
|
6/2/2008 10:23:54 PM
|
The bill is dead,thecommisioner will not sign it.. Mike Bolton,outdoor writer for the Bham News,started a publicity blitz about how this would inconvenience the bass fishermen,and succeeded in getting so many folks to call,that the dept backed away. Too bad,it was a good bill.
|
| Name: |
peruecreek
-
|
|
| Subject: |
100 Foot Restriction
|
|
Date:
|
6/2/2008 10:29:28 PM
|
This is a lake with 750 miles of shoreline. There are plenty of places to pull a tube, wakeboard, etc that do not have piers or docks. It never ceases to amaze me that people are pulling a tube with children on it in the main river channels when there are many alternatives.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
100 Foot Restriction
|
|
Date:
|
6/3/2008 6:09:14 AM
|
agree. we live in a cove. we wanted it for the privacy, quite and nice calm water. But on weekends it is water skiers paradise. On memorial day weekend there were two boats pulling skiers nearly all day (and the cove is not that big). The waves were like an ocean and I had to move my boat off the floating dock because it was rocking up and down so much.
|
| Name: |
AUCATZ
-
|
|
| Subject: |
100 Foot Restriction
|
|
Date:
|
6/3/2008 9:11:05 AM
|
Amen! Come into our slough (Lake Martin Chapel is at the end of the slough), some weekend and watch the traffic. Boats pulling 3, yes THREE, Big Bertha tubes behind a speed boat - each with 2 children on them- at high speeds. We watch in fear and dread each weekend for someone to slam into one of the docks. And, idle speed isn't known to these boaters and jet skis. Heck, the waves will knock the bumpers up on the docks because they are so high.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
100 Foot Restriction
|
|
Date:
|
6/3/2008 10:01:25 AM
|
My main point is that common sense and common courtesy through boater education is the key, not a new law. I still maintain that it would have been unenforceable and that it will only be used to prosecute in the event of an accident. When we pull tubes or skiers/wakeboarders we stay away from the shore and docks and frankly 100 feet would be too close even for me.
My main fear with a law like this is that what happened to me once will become a regular occurrence. We were in a larger area of Sandy Creek and there were two boats tied up together in the middle of the area. We were pulling tubes and they waved us over and asked us to go elsewhere because our waves were bouncing them around. I moved to another area out of courtesy but it still bothers me that they had this sense of entitlement to anchor in the middle and not be bothered by waves. It is the same sense of entitlement that I see with people and their piers on open areas of the lake complaining about waves. A lake has boats, boats make waves, piers and docking systems can be designed to handle it. If people don't take proper precautions then the occasional inconsiderate boater will cause damage.
With a law like this, people will be filing complaints left and right claiming someone came within 100 feet, they will be staking out in areas where it will be impossible to pass by them except at idle. Think about it, if they were anchored in the middle of a 400' wide area with piers on either side by this law you theoretically would have to idle when you go past them (unless it is exempt). This will create all sorts of conflict that can be avoided by common sense and common courtesy.
|
| Name: |
RatherBeSkiing
-
|
|
| Subject: |
100 Foot Restriction
|
|
Date:
|
6/3/2008 11:53:54 AM
|
I agree with MartiniMan. I'm more concerned about HOW the boat is being driven than WHERE. They need to enforce the existing laws - not add more.
|
| Name: |
solvacc
-
|
|
| Subject: |
100' restriction could've been
|
|
Date:
|
6/3/2008 1:12:22 PM
|
I'd rather it be a law. That way it would place the burden on the offender instead of the offended who's only action is to flag down the offending boat. Plus, the new rule would be on the certification test, so everyone would be educated (in theory).
A separate note, if you have children in the water, consider investing in a dive flag. We try to fly one whenever I have passengers go for a swim around the boat or dock.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
100' restriction could've been
|
|
Date:
|
6/3/2008 3:17:42 PM
|
I sympathize with wanting to place the burden on the offender but the current reality is that if someone is operating a boat in an unsafe and reckless manner there are already laws to deal with that. I continue to maintain that having this law will not improve safety and will only provide one more violation beyond the current laws that will be used in the event of an accident. It is not enforceable and will create more conflict without improving safety. How about a boater awareness push stressing the need for keeping a safe distance from other boats? That will improve awareness and safety much more than a new law.
I do agree with you about the need to flag although I am of the opinion that you should give a wide berth to any boat that is anchored and if someone is swimming so far away from the boat that they bear some responsibility for an accident.
|
| Name: |
boataholic
-
|
|
| Subject: |
100' restriction could've been
|
|
Date:
|
6/3/2008 3:48:07 PM
|
So guilty until proven innocent?
|
| Name: |
Mack
-
|
|
| Subject: |
100 Foot Restriction
|
|
Date:
|
6/3/2008 6:22:04 PM
|
As stated earlier, the 100 foot rule is not enforceable. The Marine Patrol as thin as it is cannot possibly manage it with any positive effect.
Boater Education today for many boaters is viewed as an inconvenience if required, and I don't think it would be effective if required of every operator, especially if you are trying to teach "courtesy".
My GrandPappy could solve the problem in a heartbeat. A firm slap "upside the head" works wonders. But, I guess that can't happen any longer, huh?
|
|
|
New Post
Search
Burnsville Lake Topics Forum
Reply
»
West Virginia Lakes
»
Burnsville Lake
Login
|
Home
