New Wakeless Zones in 3 Lake Powell Side Canyons

Status
Not open for further replies.

Waterbaby

Moderator
Staff member
https://www.lakepowelllife.com/new-wakeless-zones-in-3-lake-powell-side-canyons/

New Wakeless Zones in 3 Lake Powell Side Canyons


May 03
11:03 2017
by KXAZ News
In a continuing effort to make Glen Canyon National Recreation Area safer for all types of recreation, the park is establishing wakeless zones in three side canyons on Lake Powell: Antelope, Labyrinth and Lost Eden canyons.

A review by Glen Canyon staff has shown motorized watercraft travelling above wakeless speed often violate existing speed and proximity laws, and present a safety hazard when sharing these narrow canyons with non-motorized watercraft such as kayaks. Maintaining wakeless speed throughout these canyons will prevent collisions, swamping or capsizing of other watercraft and alleviate a growing visitor use conflict.

“With 96 major side canyons and 1,960 miles of shoreline on Lake Powell, there is plenty for people to enjoy in all types of motorized and non-motorized watercraft while being safe and respectful of your fellow boaters,” said William Shott, superintendent of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Rainbow Bridge National Monument. “Following the rules of the lake, combined with measures like wearing a life vest and having a designated driver, will save lives and provide a better experience for everyone.”

Buoys with signs alerting boaters to the requirement to travel at wakeless speed will be posted at the mouths of the three canyons before May 25, when enforcement of the wakeless zones is set to begin. Violation will result in a citation from law enforcement rangers.

If the new wakeless zones prove beneficial for park users, Glen Canyon may consider designating some canyons for non-motorized use only.

Visitors to Glen Canyon use a variety of watercraft on Lake Powell, including houseboats, powerboats, personal watercraft (“jet skis”), kayaks and paddleboards.

Lake Powell accounts for 13 percent of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, which encompasses 1.25 million acres in total. The lake provides access to many parts of the park, connecting visitors with hikes to slot canyons, gulches, waterfalls, hanging gardens and natural bridges.
 

potter water

Well-Known Member
Glory and Hallelujah. Lets add a couple dozen more canyons too. There are thousands of puddles of water across the country to cut big wakes in, but none as beautiful and potentially peaceful as Lake Powell. If a person is focused on going fast, there are plenty of places to do that that have no scenery and no risk to fragile structures.

Glad someone in government is finally "getting it."

The main lake is more than big enough and beautiful enough for the big boats and the PWC's and wakers. Leave the side canyons to wakeless. I'm not in favor of any canyon being closed to motorized, but certainly support the wakeless speed limits. As a canoe and kayak and cruiser boater, I know how easy it is for a 30 foot cruiser to share waters with non motorized folks. Pull the throttles all the way back, get out a Pepsi and enjoy the sun, the water, the structures and cliffs and mountains and catch a fish and cruise leisurely up that lazy canyon. Even stop along the way when you see a canoe or kayak and chat with those folks and make new friends on the water.
 

Endurance

Well-Known Member
Isn't it funny how willingly we accept the intrusion of big government into our lives when that big government intrusion has an impact on some activity that we don't do at this point in our lives.

My take is that we have quite enough federal regulation. It seems sufficient to me to enforce the laws that are already on the books. More laws, particularly federal laws? No thanks.
 

birdsnest

Well-Known Member
There are many side canyons that are wide enough that I hope wakeless will not be instituted. Antelope is not one of them though. I can't imagine going into or out of Last Chance wakeless. Courtesy is the key. There already is a law requiring wakeless speed when within 150 feet of a boat or person in the water that is ignored all the time without consequence so I hope that this is not just another toothless law.
 

birdsnest

Well-Known Member
Isn't it funny how willingly we accept the intrusion of big government into our lives when that big government intrusion has an impact on some activity that we don't do at this point in our lives.

My take is that we have quite enough federal regulation. It seems sufficient to me to enforce the laws that are already on the books. More laws, particularly federal laws? No thanks.
Sorry endurance, I didn't mean to step on you, didn't know you replied till after I hit I hi the reply button.. Looks like great minds think alike
 

potter water

Well-Known Member
I definitely sympathize with your view about law creep, Endurance. But, many people simply can't behave in courteous ways up these canyons. If they could, we would need no laws at all. If they could, the lake wouldn't now be under the grim reaper of quagga muscles. If they obeyed the distance and speed laws on the Lake, we would need no further interference from the park folks. But, even the park tour boats don't obey the law. So, yes, start enforcing and ticketing all violators of current law including tour boats. To do that, will require triple the Park enforcement staff which will require triple the use fees. I can also guarantee that the wakeless rules in the canyons as proposed will be violated by most because there will be no enforcement personnel hanging out in the canyon.

I don't see anything wrong with managing the Lake resources with a mind to end user access AND safety. Make sure that there is room for the go fast folks, and the go slow folks. That can be reasonably done by limiting who can operate what and how in what areas of the lake. There is simply no reason for anyone to be in the narrower side canyons on plane. It is unsafe as hell. I've seen two boats going opposite directions in canyons on-plane around tight corners. Close calls many times as observed by me and also as an unwilling victim of beer fueled bravado.

We are talking about a very small percentage of the whole lake.
 

TheMarinator

Well-Known Member
I dont know if I am a fan of this or not yet ...... as mentioned above "courtesy is the key" but the problem is that 150ft rule is rarely applied let alone enforced , couple that with the fact that 150ft rule is ignored with ballasted boats that throw huge wakes that can be very dangerous to other boats ....... you end up with rules like this.

IMO I would just rather see a rule of no wakeboarding in side canyons or at least the vast majority of side canyons

was camped in Iceberg once (in a side canyon of a side canyon) and a wakeboard boat came rolling through clearly within 150 ft of me and another camp throwing huge waves , bouncing our boats everywhere .....frustrating
 

potter water

Well-Known Member
I suppose that now in the days of smart phones and point and shoot cameras that folks could do their own documentation of dangerous boating and the park service can track down the offender from the boat number and write them up. Sometimes being a snitch is useful. Just make sure that we don't throw stones and live in a glass house.
 

birdsnest

Well-Known Member
I was fishing down at the chains one time when this jerk buzzed about ten of us,really rocked my world. I was so mad that I went after him. When he stopped, I pulled up on him and told him what a jerk he was and he turned the tables and noted that I had just done the same thing to him. Talk about eating humble pie. I'll never forget that one. Don't let anger fog your vision.
 

VanillaIceCream

Well-Known Member
Isn't it funny how willingly we accept the intrusion of big government into our lives when that big government intrusion has an impact on some activity that we don't do at this point in our lives.

My take is that we have quite enough federal regulation. It seems sufficient to me to enforce the laws that are already on the books. More laws, particularly federal laws? No thanks.

While I don't like the reckless boaters...I too was thinking this.
How long until more canyons are added...until the entire lake is mostly kayaks? I bet the environmentalists would love that, as powerboats are too dangerous and spoil the beauty of LP (according to environmentalists).

just saying.....
 
Last edited:

Ringer

Well-Known Member
I also don't like new regs. If they would force the tour boats to do no wake that would work. They go full tilt and plow a huge wake compared to a wake boat.
 

Ryan

Well-Known Member
I don't know about Antelope or Labyrinth, but I will say that Lost Eden being wakeless makes sense to me. It is a busy, narrow canyon that is very close to both Halls and Bullfrog. It sure is peaceful to get under the overhang and float in the shade during the heat of the summer. That is until one of any type of boat comes in on plane. The waves bounce back and fourth for an hour.

I am not sure I wouldn't support it in other areas (like the ends of fingers of canyons in a place like Iceburg). That is why we avoid those places when we take the houseboat out. I would rather find a protected corner of a bay in Rincon, GHB, or the San Juan, than a tight canyon where people ignore the 150' rule and end up bouncing my houseboat off the shore, and my little boat off the side of the houseboat.

I would not support any "non motorized" canyons. Just isn't needed.

The trouble with any of this has already been mentioned. Whatever happens is very unlikely to be enforced. So what good is it?
 

birdsnest

Well-Known Member
I didn't even think about the environmentalist angle. They would be giddy to get boats off Powell.
While I don't like the reckless boaters...I too was thinking this.
How long until more canyons are added...until the entire lake is mostly kayaks? I bet the environmentalists would love that, as powerboats are too dangerous and spoil the beauty of LP (according to environmentalists).

just saying.....
 

potter water

Well-Known Member
I'm really glad that we have people in the country with a passion for environmentalism. Because they are there, I don't have to be one. I can't deal with the male hairstyles that are so important to the uniform. I just don't look good in a man-bun.
 

TheMarinator

Well-Known Member
"If the new wakeless zones prove beneficial for park users, Glen Canyon may consider designating some canyons for non-motorized use only."

I missed this line in the original post.

Yeah ,that is a slippery slope right there . I dont like that sentence one bit ......... huge difference from no-wake zone to all of a sudden non-motorized.
 

Goblin

Well-Known Member
So I am to believe that these new 'wakeless canyon rules' will prevent people that already "violate existing speed and proximity laws, and present a safety hazard" from violating existing speed and proximity laws, presenting a safety hazard, AND violating these nifty new wakeless canyon rules. Uh-huh

Much like affronts to the 'Second Amendment', it is not a solution to pass another law that is violated by those who are wont to do so.

Reminds me of the time my brother & I got a truck, went out into the country and bought watermelons for a quarter apiece and then returned to the city just to then sell them for a quarter apiece.

Upon counting our money I said, "You know we didn't make any money on this new business, what can we do about it?"

My brother quickly responded, "Next time we'll use a bigger truck!"

Now that is a true story or not or whatever but it does illustrate the point quite well.
FWIW
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top