Not meant to be just another Surfers Vs All Other Boaters rant

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ryan said:
Are you even reading my responses, because I've answered at least some of them multiple times.

Do I think surf wakes carry great energy at 150'? ANY boat over say 5000 pounds that moves at a speed above waveless creates a large wake. The heavier the boat, the bigger the wake. That one is pretty much impossible to not agree with.

What should the required distance be? I don't think you will have agreement on that. Is it more than 150'? Some would agree with that, many others won't.

What is wrong with a change to the regulations to 500'? Simple. If you understand how BIG 500' is, that would eliminate the majority of the lake, including the main channel. You might as well outlaw all wakes at that point. So no, I don't support that.

I'll be direct on this one. I care as much about how you enjoy the lake as you care about how surfers do. There are options given above about how folks who want a "quiet enjoyment of the lake" would accomplish that and not eliminate surfing, but that has been ignored. We are out on the lake multiple times/days per year and have not had conflict following above advice.

I personally would not advocate for any individual to "play park ranger" when something is an annoyance to them. Sure sounds like a good way to ruin your own vacation, and says a lot about an individual hat takes that kind of action when injury/property damage aren't involved, but to each their own.
Click to expand...
I don't play park ranger, I talk to my neighbors. I'm also not above calling out full on morons who have disregard for life and limb.

I do care that you can enjoy the lake with your family and if surfing how you it I'm onboard.

150 feet just does not seem to be enough, sometimes they even go full on surf mode closer than that. At. 150 feet water can come over the transom of my boat and the maker all seem to be in a race to make the biggest wave possible. The channel and the big bays i think are much larger than you are thinking they are, but it would mean you'd need to stay 500 feet from shore.

Thanks for your reply
 
150’ is very easy to imagine. It’s two houseboat lengths. 500’ is almost 7. Or about 170 yards. I won’t support that.

I’m not disagreeing that 150’ might be too close. And if I had that going on behind my boat repeatedly I’d also be upset. But I also wouldn’t put myself in that position.

I challenge you to take a rangefinder out on the lake. 500’ is much bigger than you think.
 
Ryan said:
So, are you worried about property damage from them being at 150’, as that has already been covered.

The much easier solution is to pick a different camp site where there won’t be anyone throwing waves behind you.

We used to always camp in Escalante and Iceberg. As the lake got more crowded, boats got bigger, wake sports became popular, we mostly abandoned those spots and have found other places to camp. Should we have to do that? Probably not. But I also should be taller. Control the controllable.

Getting people to sign off on a 500’ buffer zone around other boats is incredibly unlikely. Arbitrarily applied to one type of boat/sport and effectively shutting down the whole lake. But if that is a windmill one wants to tilt at, have at it.

I’m sure glad this isn’t your typical rant that comes up multiple times a year and goes nowhere…..
Click to expand...
Wow. That is self entitlement personified! I should move because your behavior is so egregious that I should anticipate a bad outcome? Pretty much sums up the mentality that a person has no responsibility for the effects of their actions on others.

I am sure your response will be a defensive attack, but why don’t people think about how their actions are affecting others?
 
Dorado said:
Wow. That is self entitlement personified! I should move because your behavior is so egregious that I should anticipate a bad outcome? Pretty much sums up the mentality that a person has no responsibility for the effects of their actions on others.

I am sure your response will be a defensive attack, but why don’t people think about how their actions are affecting others?
Click to expand...
Well, I guess that’s one way to take it. Or you can look at it as a way to have a more enjoyable vacation by being responsible for your own satisfaction and not putting yourself in a position that is going to cause conflict.

The way you’re taking it is that the person who chooses a campsite with no regard to how others may be using the area and they should move to accommodate the ones who pulled in and camped. You realize it’s basically the same position, right?

Listen, my group does not do water sports in canyons other than the San Juan. I think it’s just as ill advised to be flying through tight canyons at high speeds with a PWC or skiing (or just driving fast) as it is to surf. But I don’t support closing the canyons to those activities.

And that position is just as much about the knowledge that it won’t be enforced as anything else. Regulations/laws that people know won’t be enforced will be ignored which leads to less respect for regulators overall.

So if someone doesn’t like a practical solution, and understands that regulations haven’t solved the “problem”, what tactics would you suggest?
 
jimmybame said:
So go to your last camping spot on google earth measure out from the back of your houseboat 500 feet then go 150 pretty obvious that 150ft is not enough 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
I’m not arguing the 150’. I’ll die on the hill of 500’. If you go on Google Earth and measure, the 500’ distance eliminates all of the San Juan with the exception of a few bays.

It eliminates much of the main channel from the SJ to GHB. Most of the channel is not much more than 1000’ wide.

And other than a few individuals that may be willing to play Ranger on their own, the lack of enforcement remains the bigger issue.

And since you’re already responsible for your own wake, isn’t distance already covered?
 
Ryan said:
Well, I guess that’s one way to take it. Or you can look at it as a way to have a more enjoyable vacation by being responsible for your own satisfaction and not putting yourself in a position that is going to cause conflict.

The way you’re taking it is that the person who chooses a campsite with no regard to how others may be using the area and they should move to accommodate the ones who pulled in and camped. You realize it’s basically the same position, right?

Listen, my group does not do water sports in canyons other than the San Juan. I think it’s just as ill advised to be flying through tight canyons at high speeds with a PWC or skiing (or just driving fast) as it is to surf. But I don’t support closing the canyons to those activities.

And that position is just as much about the knowledge that it won’t be enforced as anything else. Regulations/laws that people know won’t be enforced will be ignored which leads to less respect for regulators overall.

So if someone doesn’t like a practical solution, and understands that regulations haven’t solved the “problem”, what tactics would you suggest?
Click to expand...
More than likely, people set up camp not knowing that it was a giant wake zone. Do you believe that it is a battle between those with the biggest boats that claim an area, that should not be available for anyone else that does not make a huge wake? Really I am just trying to understand the mentality. I understand you enjoy your chosen recreational activity.
 
Dorado said:
Do you believe that it is a battle between those with the biggest boats that claim an area
Click to expand...
Certainly not. But I do think if you set up camp in a wide open area, you should expect to be rocked by wakes, wether that is from people doing water sports, large boats cruising (plowing) by, or the wind. If you have a wide open area behind you that is a bad place to camp.

And I don't think any one group's desires supersedes another in a NRA. Doesn't matter if it is paddle boards, sail boats, PWC, houseboats, cruisers, water sports enthusiasts. We all have equal rights on the lake and in theory, one group should not dictate how the other recreates. In practice, competing interests are hard to balance.

The reality is that it is very difficult to meet everyone's desire on the lake. The two nonnegotiable are property damage and safety. Which are both already addressed by current (mostly unenforced) regulations. And what has been repeatedly stated is not the subject of this post anyway........
 
Ryan said:
Well, I guess that’s one way to take it. Or you can look at it as a way to have a more enjoyable vacation by being responsible for your own satisfaction and not putting yourself in a position that is going to cause conflict.

The way you’re taking it is that the person who chooses a campsite with no regard to how others may be using the area and they should move to accommodate the ones who pulled in and camped. You realize it’s basically the same position, right?

Listen, my group does not do water sports in canyons other than the San Juan. I think it’s just as ill advised to be flying through tight canyons at high speeds with a PWC or skiing (or just driving fast) as it is to surf. But I don’t support closing the canyons to those activities.

And that position is just as much about the knowledge that it won’t be enforced as anything else. Regulations/laws that people know won’t be enforced will be ignored which leads to less respect for regulators overall.

So if someone doesn’t like a practical solution, and understands that regulations haven’t solved the “problem”, what tactics would you suggest?
Click to expand...
I would never camp anywhere near a group with wake boat. The problem lies with the fact they don't want wake boats near their camp either so they travel to the next cove where I have just set up camp....I guess in reality, if you want calm waters you should camp as close to them as possible. And pray the music does not suck....
 
I really have yet to see anyone specifically define the problem they are looking to solve. Especially considering all the regulations currently on the books.

It’s not property damage. And it’s not personal injury. So what is it?

Because it sounds like it’s mostly an inconvenience (maybe that isn’t the right word so someone else give an alternative) of one group enjoying the lake in a way that conflicts with another groups form of enjoyment.

Directly, surfing conflicts with “I want to relax”.

How do you fix that without impeding on one groups right to enjoy the lake the way they want to. It’s an NRA and belongs to everyone.

And none of that scratches the surface of what would even be enforced.

Seems like an impasse.
 
Seems like we're going in circles here. Frustration with (some) surfers is well-known on this site. Maybe there's a solution - maybe not. Ryan's logic is sound insomuch as (the lack of) enforcement has failed to alter bad behaviors. New (also unenforced) laws/regulations are unlikely to make material improvements to anyone's experience on the lake. Ryan's position on shared multi-use is also the current position of the NPS, like it or not.

It's a free country, if you want to effect some sort of change, it's your right. Many people will rejoice if a true solution can be found. In the meantime, this thread has evidently run its course since it is dipping its toes into personal attacks rather than sticking strictly to discussion of the issues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top