An issue with more than one perspective, for sure. When I started going to Lake Powell as a kid, we were going in a 15.5 ft Crestliner open bow. I remember riding over the tour boat waves in that tiny boat! Quite a thrill for a kid, not worried about property damage. I now have a little bigger boat, a 32 ft cruiser with twin engines. And yes, I have been on the end of some pretty grumpy people who are upset about the size of the wake it throws - which admittedly is a hell of a wake. I really do my best to keep as much distance between myself and other boaters as possible. But as we all know, underwater rocks, narrow canyons, other boaters, floating lake debris, pretty much dictate the path sometimes. So often, I bring it off of plane or take a very wide turn and give as much distance as I can - you cannot stop for everything. But people pick some of the most stupid places to stop and float. I'm sorry but if you choose to park and float your boat at the entrance of a canyon or other high traffic area, I feel like I have every right to use that portion of the lake as much as you do. When we had a small boat, we'd find a place where we were protected from the waves before shutting down. In my mind, this is sort of like people who stop to visit in the doorway at the grocery store with no regard the 100 people stacked up behind them who want to get out. Bottom line is that there's plenty of lake for us all, we just all need to focus on being courteous and realize that no one is probably actively looking to use their vacation day to ruin others vacation day.
Making wakes: Large tour boats on Powell are putting other lake-goers at risk
- Thread starter Waterbaby
- Start date
- Status
Last fall I had an encounter with the tour boat. We were up in Friendship fishing for a couple days and were heading back to Wahweap in my 18' bass boat in the morning. We were approaching the cut from the Warm Creek side and I saw the tour boat in the cut heading our way. We were still a long way from the no wake buoys. Didn't think anything of it since I have passed the tour boat many times. Unfortunately, he made it out of the no wake zone before I could get there. He gunned it to get up on plane and created just about the worst wave he could have possible made which couldn't be avoided in that tight of an area. I sure wish I had my GoPro on but for some reason it wasn't. Everything in the boat was secured as always but I told my fishing buddy to hold on as this was going to be interesting. These waves were very close together and very steep and big! Luckily, wind and weather conditions were perfect and I had time to get the boat parallel to the waves at a very slow speed and roll in and out of them side to side. If for some reason we were dead in the water we could have certainly been swamped. And we weren't the only boat around. We were following a 30+' cabin cruiser that was tossed around pretty good. Being in a smaller boat I expect to get the occasional rogue wave that might get us wet. You always need to be prepared and know how to handle your boat. But there is no way the tour boat didn't see us and if he had just waited 5 more minutes before he tried to get on plane this situation could have been avoided.
There appears to be a pattern of agreement that the tour boats creates huge wakes that present dangerous conditions for any boat near them. Why are these boats still on the lake, why has the NPS not taken action to remove this threat. Looking at the hull of that boat shows it is designed for off shore conditions found in the Great Lakes or the oceans where their massive wakes are free to roam and dissipate without hazard to others, a boat capable of producing known wakes that huge in the confined canyons of Powell is negligence. Those boats should be replaced or be required to operate at speeds that eliminate the wake threat. If this was a private boat, enforcement would have been prompt and swift. Just another reason to enjoy the Bullfrog end.
kevin, good post. As a small boat guy, I appreciate you looking out when possible when driving your ocean rig.
the underlying thought behind my earlier rant is that there's not nearly as much difference between the "too big" tour boat wake and everyone else as there used to be. Can you really ban the tour boats "offshore hull" and not ban Kevin's 32'er? Then the wake surfers are adding ballast and intentionally displacing almost as much as Kevin and refusing to get on plane, so get them out too. Pretty much need to ban anything longer and heavier than my 18' bass boat. Then I can run 60 mph all over the lake, unless they add a speed limit too, or until the wind blows. Can we ban wind too?
GregC
Well-Known Member
Kevin, Sometimes there's a good reason why those boats are "parked and floating" at the entrance to canyons. They may be fishermen and they're there because that's WHERE THE FISH ARE! I have a 25 ft cruiser that can leave quite a wake, but I manage to share the lake with those who every right to use the lake as much as I do, and slow down to at least near wakeless when entering a canyon. If I'm not turning into that canyon, I'll steer as clear as I can to reduce my wake action.
Ryan
Keeper of San Juan Secrets
I would say you can find most of the answer to this question in the article originally posted.
According to the article, there were a total of 9 injuries reported in a 3 year span. And "40 total wake-related injuries since 2005".
What is annual visitation to the lake? Something like 1,000,000 people? Not making a judgement myself here, but the number of reported problems is miniscule. Compare those numbers to alcohol related accidents, or just about any traffic related problem on the highway system.
Ryan
Keeper of San Juan Secrets
Goblin, I am truly at a loss that you would compare a "150' wakeless area" to murder, rape and armed robbery laws. That is an asinine statement. Just sayin'.
And, I will stand by my earlier statement that particular regulation is NOT abided by the vast majority of boaters. I spent 4 days at the lake, much of the time in Bullfrog Bay and Halls Creek. I don't think I saw a single boat slow down to wakeless when they were within 150' of another boat. I had plenty come by me (I'd estimate over 30) much closer than that while we had a skier down (and flag up) doing water sports. Twice it was NPS boats that were the offenders.
If a law is ignored by the vast majority, including those that enforce it, it should be reevaluated.
Goblin
Well-Known Member
For reference let's define terms:
as·i·nine[ˈasəˌnīn]
stupid · foolish · brainless · mindless · senseless · idiotic · imbecilic · ridiculous · ludicrous · absurd · nonsensical · fatuous · silly · inane · witless · empty-headed · halfwitted
Now that we have the level of civility established.
Perhaps my point of comparison to provide emphasis was woefully lost on you.
Let me use an example that is virtually identical, albeit less dramatic, if that is what it takes for you to grasp this simple concept, asinine (your word) as it is.
Speeding: A great many people disregard speed limits, including those charged with enforcement, but only an extremely small minority are asinine (your word) enough to argue against speed limits without any idea of what to have in their stead. You seem to imply that the 150' wakeless rules are inappropriate because "that particular regulation is NOT abided by the vast majority of boaters." I think any responsible boater DOES make every attempt to abide by them so perhaps at least a portion of the problem may lie with you.
In your previous example it is YOU and the NPS breaking the law but he may have been responding to an emergency. What exactly was your excuse other than not wanting to be inconvenienced? In this and your latest example you do know that pointing to other's bad acts does not excuse your bad acts. Right? You know this, right? Just sayin'Ryan said:
Now let's try to be constructive vice just asinine (your word) snark. What exactly would you recommend in place of the current wakeless laws? Less than 150' or more than 150'? Or perhaps no distance at all since many boats are different? Please enlighten us. While you ponder that I will give my suggestion.
The laws exist and we should enforce them until someone gets off their rear end, comes up with a better idea and does something to change the law. Note: Breaking the law is not generally deemed a sound reason for abolishing a law. I further contend that the problem is not with the laws, imperfect as they are but, rather with the lack of obedience to the law from people just like you.
This selective nonenforcement of laws is problematic across the entire spectrum of life in America today.
I can easily think of a number of laws willfully ignored with the claim that we need to reform.
You'll never learn if a law is effective by NOT enforcing it.
FWIW,
Goblin
Waterbaby
Escalante-Class Member
There is a very good reason for the 150 foot rule. Just because we don't think a law should apply to us doesn't mean we are not obligated to follow the law. Too many rules are already violated at Lake Powell - and elsewhere - for example the fireworks law. Not only do people routinely thumb their nose at it, but they leave the garbage from the fireworks behind - and how about the boat that left all the poop in the sand? Clearly they thought the laws requiring us to use facilities only applied to other people. Some think no defacing rocks is a joke and because someone carved in them 150 years ago it is okay to carve their initials in them today... There is a reason they have a rule in Glen Canyon for jumping - unfortunately too many ignore it and some are injured for life [and not just at Powell BTW]...
True, Axis. Reminds me of being on the ocean in my 23' Sea Ray, relaxing between Ventura and Anacapa Island. Off in the distance, I'll see cargo ships running north from LA. As they steam ahead, I wonder what kind of wake that thing throws...you just have to be aware and ready...
And sometimes some parts of posts are wrong...
There are federal wakeless laws - see extract below. See the full CFR for related regulations
36 CFR 3.8 (b) (3) and (4)
(b) The following operations are inherently unsafe and therefore prohibited:
(3) Operating a vessel in excess of flat wake speed in designated areas.
(4) Operating a vessel in excess of flat wake speed within 100 feet of:
(i) A downed water skier;
(ii) A person swimming, wading, fishing from shore or floating with the aid of a flotation device;
(iii) A designated launch site; or
(iv) A manually propelled, anchored or drifting vessel.
You are correct that state laws, if more stringent, may apply. In Utah, the separation distance is 150' and also applies to vessels underway. In Arizona there is no separation law per se so the above federal regulation (100') applies.
Goblin
Well-Known Member
I stand corrected, Thank you.
To further assist those in a quest for knowledge I offer this map of Lake Powell for quick reference:
Last edited:
I guess I am the "slimeball" lawyer in question. I have litigated really bad (Spinal fracture) cases against Aramark. What people need to know is the federal inland navigational rules make captains responsible for wake damage, period. Every claim should be reported. My clients were in canyon areas and could not avoid the wakes. They were also new to the lake.
I have litigated Aramark cases on Powell involving serious (spinal Fracture) injuries. The Inland Marine Nav Rules make boat captains responsible for their wakes and all damage caused by those wakes. Period. Every violation should be reported.
gznokes
Well-Known Member
I'd be interested in your tow length recommendation (behind a houseboat). We're towing a 23' wake sport boat and when I tow less than 50' I definitely feel the resistance of pulling it through the prop chop. I was wondering if I towed it longer if it would make for an easier tow and maybe it would ride through those big tour boat waves better. . . Anyway, any other ideas would be appreciated.
- Status