|
previous topic :: next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pacifichigh
Since 11 May 2005
1004 Posts
ATX
Texan
|
 Tue Sep 09, 08 6:20 am PDX Wakeboarder/ Wakesurfers |
 |
|
http://www.pdxwakesnow.com/viewforum.php?f=20
The Oregon State Marine Board is essentially trying to shut down a big section of the willamette to wake boats, meeting is tonight. Show up if you can
|
|
|
blowhard
Since 26 Dec 2005
2027 Posts
Windward
|
| Tue Sep 09, 08 8:04 am |
|
|
you would think fuel prices would kill it
but the flow of gas guzzlers has not changed much
I see monster trucks pulling shitloads of quads
boats& rvs
|
|
|
forrest
Since 21 Jun 2005
4330 Posts
Hood River
Hick
CGKA Member
|
| Tue Sep 09, 08 8:18 am |
|
|
| This would be a huge step backwards for PDX near city recreation. What is the reasoning? Shore erosion?
|
|
|
Nak
Since 19 May 2005
4316 Posts
Camas
Site Lackey
CGKA Member
|
| Tue Sep 09, 08 8:29 am |
|
|
I think shore erosion is the excuse. (Edited to remove blatant cynicism.  )
Last edited by Nak on Tue Sep 09, 08 8:43 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
pacifichigh
Since 11 May 2005
1004 Posts
ATX
Texan
|
| Tue Sep 09, 08 8:37 am |
|
|
Erosion is def. the issue, even though studies have shown that a cabin cruiser trolling along displaces way more water than a sacked out wake boat
This ruling could potentially set a very damaging precedent.
|
|
|
Nak
Since 19 May 2005
4316 Posts
Camas
Site Lackey
CGKA Member
|
| Tue Sep 09, 08 8:49 am |
|
|
Erosion is definately a problem, but will a wakeboard ban do anything to slow it? It seems to me that the drastic seasonal water level changes would dwarf any impact a wakeboat has. To be honest though, I have no real knowledge on this issue. Maybe somenody like PDXmonkeyboy could chime in with a more educated opinion?
IF erosion won't really be impacted by this regulation, then it's merely a political animal.
|
|
|
tinyE
Since 21 Jan 2006
2004 Posts
not really an
XTreme Poster
|
| Tue Sep 09, 08 8:50 am |
|
|
it's not just bank erosion, though that
is the argument that riverfront owners
are primarily presenting. Docks are being
destroyed by the huge wakes. This is a
legitimate complaint, though the movement
is extreme. It's odd because most dock
owners I know don't want the movement
to pass because they like to boat on the
river too.
I believe this is the push to shut
down wake enhancement devices
and boating at speed within
200 feet of any dock between
Newberg and Canby. A couple of
riverfront owners have put out 200
feet buoys from their docks to show
how ridiculous this movement is.
It will basically shut down recreational
boating between Newberg and Canby.
Even if this doesn't directly affect you
(you don't ever go on that part of the
river), it is still (as always) important
to voice your opinion, as one of these
days, it could be your back yard.
 |
| |
scan.jpg |
|
|
|
blowhard
Since 26 Dec 2005
2027 Posts
Windward
|
| Tue Sep 09, 08 8:58 am |
|
|
I own a dock and they are very expensive.
state marine laws
provide for a no wake zone within 200' of docks
it's just never enforced.
This was never a problem before wakers came into being
so if this is a new sport find a location that is suitible for doing it
not breaking exsiting laws
not ruining personal property
have fun and enjoy.
Is there no place wakers are welcome?
|
|
|
trevorsmith
Since 25 Apr 2005
501 Posts
PDX
Addicted
|
| Tue Sep 09, 08 8:58 am |
|
|
So what they are saying is:
Erosion from boats very bad
Millions of gallons of waste, toxins, fertilizers etc. dumped into river is OK
I'm thinking the dumping shit into the water has way more environmental impact than a wake boat with ballast causes, fricken retarded. How 'bout focusing energy on CSO problem then worry about boat wakes. rant over.
|
|
|
blowhard
Since 26 Dec 2005
2027 Posts
Windward
|
| Tue Sep 09, 08 9:05 am |
|
|
| trevorsmith wrote: | So what they are saying is:
Erosion from boats very bad
Millions of gallons of waste, toxins, fertilizers etc. dumped into river is OK
I'm thinking the dumping shit into the water has way more environmental impact than a wake boat with ballast causes, fricken retarded. How 'bout focusing energy on CSO problem then worry about boat wakes. rant over. |
people need to eat and shit 
but i'm not sure about waking 
My neighbor freaks when wakers show up here,
and I let him,,,
just something locals can try and have thier way about
"drama"
"It's what small towns are made of"
|
|
|
pdxmonkeyboy
Since 16 May 2006
6081 Posts
forever labled as the
retired kiter & motorhead Unicorn Master
|
| Tue Sep 09, 08 9:50 am |
|
|
| Nak wrote: | To be honest though, I have no real knowledge on this issue. Maybe somenody like PDXmonkeyboy could chime in with a more educated opinion?
|
I don't know anything about this really other than it is a pain in the arse to get a recreational water lease. Seems sort of like a witch hunt but then again, I don't live on/or near the river. I could see where wakers could piss people off though. Hey, lets jam our 2,000 watt, tower mounted stereo and zip up and down the river with our artificially large wakes.
If they want to outlaw something, they should outlaw 2-stroke jetskis. Yeah, I said it. They dump raw gasoline and oil into the water and they sell 4-strokes that don't.
Trevor, In terms of this cause-vs-that cause, they are spending billions of dollars to fix the CSO problem, and many many many other business are very regulated to control pollution. The problem is people freak out and seem to forget that somethings are for the common good. Even on the little shit, people go absolutely ape. I worked on a campaign in college to fence cattle out of streams-seems simple enough right? The most stringent controls would be on public land.. yes, ranchers pay decade old fees to have their cows piss and shit in headwater streams that we all own. End result.. .Ranchers started a massive spin campaign and it was roundly defeated. Something so simply.. you want to graze cattle, fine, just don't trash the streams.... http://www.hcn.org/issues/92/2853
|
|
|
|
