BPappas
Well-Known Member
I’ve been monitoring this site daily and enjoying it for a very long time and agree that the fishing input has sadly mostly gone away. Hope this changes in the near future.
Outta touch II shame on you
- Thread starter Brent
- Start date
- Status
Michael Pyle
Well-Known Member
No way they can add any rules on this lake. They can’t even enforce the no wake zones.
I have been here for the last few days and it’s worse than ever. Not sure if it’s because more foreigners are here or what. But every no wake I have been in has at least two watercraft creating a huge wake and no idea.
The rental boats are one thing but I have seen non rental boats towing tubes moving really fast with huge wakes in all no wake zones.
Have not seen one Law enforcement boat while I have been here. We have been from Lone Rock to CID this weekend.
Mike
I have been here for the last few days and it’s worse than ever. Not sure if it’s because more foreigners are here or what. But every no wake I have been in has at least two watercraft creating a huge wake and no idea.
The rental boats are one thing but I have seen non rental boats towing tubes moving really fast with huge wakes in all no wake zones.
Have not seen one Law enforcement boat while I have been here. We have been from Lone Rock to CID this weekend.
Mike
gianni
Member
Begone wakeboats. Staygone Dangling rope.
Thats some positive fishing input mixed in with suggestions for a dwindling lake that needs a new management plan.
Last edited:
Rainbowbridge
Keeper of San Juan Secrets
Bpappas, Methinks after the idiots leave, in the off season, most posts will go back to reflect fishing, relaxation, and other good, interesting, historical stuff.....
But there's the wise old saying "When you're up to your *ss in alligators, it's easy to forget that the goal was to drain the swamp."
That's what we're dealing with here, in high season. Narcissist boaters (wake and otherwise) of course get everyone's attention.
Yup, it's a shame, and a pain. I endure low back pain, but the pain these narcissists inflict is a bit lower.....
Thank God we have fall and winter at our beloved lake....
Well that was an interesting read.
Numerical Study of the Impact of Wake Surfing on Inland Bodies of Water
A “Study” can be (usually always is) heavily influenced by the “funding” party. Regardless of reality and real world conditions, the intended purpose of the funding party can almost always be represented in a positive spin supported with limited truths data.
This study data on boat wakes has been carefully designed to deliver a positive statement that the funding party wants the public to see. Any fluid dynamics engineer, even a freshman in 101 level courses can see the BS in the study.
Sure enough, this paper was funded by a party who benefited with social perception of low environmental impact to big wakes… “The development of this paper was supported financially by the National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) in cooperation with its members.” This is a conflict.
The intro is clear, noting hull design and ballast and reference to tabs (which is a gentle way of saying stern plows and underwater wings) which are designed for the sole purpose to exaggerate and produce gigantic wakes outside of the standard hull displacement prediction models. As the story continues it gets fuzzy with energy rated HP referenced at ONLY 110HP - 145HP, MUCH lower than any wake boat I have ever seen at powell. There are many graphs but ironically the one missing is wake amplitude variable curves at higher ballast, higher bow trim, along with plotting data points of applied artificial agitators like wake generators across non planning velocities.
The missing graph and data points are critical as that is the source of the bigger problem - disruption models including stern plows and wake wings and off balance ballast loading.
Water is basically non compressible, and it has predictable behaviors. Gravity is basically a constant. A wake can be predicted and modeled and is a result of moving a displacement shape (anything from a stick in the water to your hand out the window) through a fluid (air, water, jello, etc) and applied energy (movement & heats transfer). Depending on how efficiently that shape interacts with and disrupts the fluid around it will determine wake patterns of laminar flows or turbulent flows. All of the math presented in the study is just basic stuff (like hooks and lures) and would be expected to be included in any discussion of this nature, and it is the same formulas and models that can easily illustrate the massive increase in mean wake amplitude when applied to variables like wake generators and off balance ballast and also when applying energy component propulsion greater than 140HP.
At the end of the day the force impacting the shore is a direct relation of the height (amplitude) of the wave (generated by surface separation & hull design) and the applied energy at source (HP) and the distance to impact zone and other disruptions like wind acting on the fluid field between disruption source (boat) and point of impact, fluid depth, and entry angle of wake to surface (elastic gentle beach vrs non elastic rock cliff). This amplitude value does diminish with distance from origin (energy losses) but also increases with reverb when 2 wave energies collide and this is huge at powell due to close proximity to source (boat) and non elastic impact zones (rock cliff walls). The reverb they show illustrates elastic edges at friendly water depths.
This engineering group has used trickery to present the exact discovery the funding party desired... but their data is incomplete. Their lack of full disclosure to real world conditions is disingenuous but expected. They made misleading statements relating to actual shoreline erosion losses without ever discussing relative angle of wake/ shore or soil composition. But they did gently admit that wakes do result in shoreline erosion. They did soften their summary conclusion but intentionally left out key data points that if included would have prevented the funding party from obtaining the result they were seeking.
This study will have an entirely different conclusion with the inclusion of average real world conditions including exaggerated wake generating hull design, exaggerated angle of attack of displacing hull, exaggerated stern ballast including off balance mass to enhance wake amplitude on one side, exaggerated wake from stern plow (sinking the stern FAR deeper than natural displacement with sub surface stern wings).
It is fun to see Kelvin wake models again. Although Kelvin was the first to predict and model wake energies (bow wakes planning wakes and stern wakes), he is best known for absolute Zero K temperature when particles stop. To end with a head scratcher, the number zero, less than 1, is the newest (youngest) number value in our numeric system. The number zero is thousands of years younger than the numbers 1-9. Roman numerals do not have a zero. Hmmm.
Big wakes with high amplitudes as intentionally generated with wake boats are bad and do cause shoreline erosion within its energy field and will deliver great discomfort to those within its energy field.
Action is Needed.
Wake boats need to be restricted to idle speed in all side canyons at powell and should be only allowed to operate above idle speed in the main channel. Distances that wake boats should be legally responsible needs to be increased from 150 feet to 1 mile or to distance that amplitude is less than 12”. Laws need to be added to Powell to include “damage or DISCOMFORT” to others.
A single wake boat can ruin the natural condition for everyone within its energy field. Wake Up NPS.
The real problem is clear - Wake boats cannot coexist in side canyons as the drivers have clearly illustrated they are incapable of common sense and courtesy to others. Big fines and big tickets and confiscation of boat until mandatory trial date is the start. Without a consequence, you have no stick. Wake boats are a nuisance and threat to public safety and need to be regulated under nuisance laws and public safety laws. The 150 marker needs to be updated to real world conditions and referenced in amplitude at impact zone and not distance.
How is it possible that the lake has managed to go this long without a modified and updated boat wake law. Maybe a web site where impacted third parties can upload videos of bouncing houseboats and tag numbers of offending boat that forces a responding ranger. How about staging a ranger in padre everyday, able to respond to the endless 16 calls from rocking and rolling houseboats.
99% of wake boat drivers are jerks.
And yes, there is shore erosion with every single wake impact.
Who makes the laws for powell and how do we contact them to ask them to update the law on boats with big wakes at powell. The problem is only getting worse - more boats and a smaller lake.
Numerical Study of the Impact of Wake Surfing on Inland Bodies of Water
A “Study” can be (usually always is) heavily influenced by the “funding” party. Regardless of reality and real world conditions, the intended purpose of the funding party can almost always be represented in a positive spin supported with limited truths data.
This study data on boat wakes has been carefully designed to deliver a positive statement that the funding party wants the public to see. Any fluid dynamics engineer, even a freshman in 101 level courses can see the BS in the study.
Sure enough, this paper was funded by a party who benefited with social perception of low environmental impact to big wakes… “The development of this paper was supported financially by the National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) in cooperation with its members.” This is a conflict.
The intro is clear, noting hull design and ballast and reference to tabs (which is a gentle way of saying stern plows and underwater wings) which are designed for the sole purpose to exaggerate and produce gigantic wakes outside of the standard hull displacement prediction models. As the story continues it gets fuzzy with energy rated HP referenced at ONLY 110HP - 145HP, MUCH lower than any wake boat I have ever seen at powell. There are many graphs but ironically the one missing is wake amplitude variable curves at higher ballast, higher bow trim, along with plotting data points of applied artificial agitators like wake generators across non planning velocities.
The missing graph and data points are critical as that is the source of the bigger problem - disruption models including stern plows and wake wings and off balance ballast loading.
Water is basically non compressible, and it has predictable behaviors. Gravity is basically a constant. A wake can be predicted and modeled and is a result of moving a displacement shape (anything from a stick in the water to your hand out the window) through a fluid (air, water, jello, etc) and applied energy (movement & heats transfer). Depending on how efficiently that shape interacts with and disrupts the fluid around it will determine wake patterns of laminar flows or turbulent flows. All of the math presented in the study is just basic stuff (like hooks and lures) and would be expected to be included in any discussion of this nature, and it is the same formulas and models that can easily illustrate the massive increase in mean wake amplitude when applied to variables like wake generators and off balance ballast and also when applying energy component propulsion greater than 140HP.
At the end of the day the force impacting the shore is a direct relation of the height (amplitude) of the wave (generated by surface separation & hull design) and the applied energy at source (HP) and the distance to impact zone and other disruptions like wind acting on the fluid field between disruption source (boat) and point of impact, fluid depth, and entry angle of wake to surface (elastic gentle beach vrs non elastic rock cliff). This amplitude value does diminish with distance from origin (energy losses) but also increases with reverb when 2 wave energies collide and this is huge at powell due to close proximity to source (boat) and non elastic impact zones (rock cliff walls). The reverb they show illustrates elastic edges at friendly water depths.
This engineering group has used trickery to present the exact discovery the funding party desired... but their data is incomplete. Their lack of full disclosure to real world conditions is disingenuous but expected. They made misleading statements relating to actual shoreline erosion losses without ever discussing relative angle of wake/ shore or soil composition. But they did gently admit that wakes do result in shoreline erosion. They did soften their summary conclusion but intentionally left out key data points that if included would have prevented the funding party from obtaining the result they were seeking.
This study will have an entirely different conclusion with the inclusion of average real world conditions including exaggerated wake generating hull design, exaggerated angle of attack of displacing hull, exaggerated stern ballast including off balance mass to enhance wake amplitude on one side, exaggerated wake from stern plow (sinking the stern FAR deeper than natural displacement with sub surface stern wings).
It is fun to see Kelvin wake models again. Although Kelvin was the first to predict and model wake energies (bow wakes planning wakes and stern wakes), he is best known for absolute Zero K temperature when particles stop. To end with a head scratcher, the number zero, less than 1, is the newest (youngest) number value in our numeric system. The number zero is thousands of years younger than the numbers 1-9. Roman numerals do not have a zero. Hmmm.
Big wakes with high amplitudes as intentionally generated with wake boats are bad and do cause shoreline erosion within its energy field and will deliver great discomfort to those within its energy field.
Action is Needed.
Wake boats need to be restricted to idle speed in all side canyons at powell and should be only allowed to operate above idle speed in the main channel. Distances that wake boats should be legally responsible needs to be increased from 150 feet to 1 mile or to distance that amplitude is less than 12”. Laws need to be added to Powell to include “damage or DISCOMFORT” to others.
A single wake boat can ruin the natural condition for everyone within its energy field. Wake Up NPS.
The real problem is clear - Wake boats cannot coexist in side canyons as the drivers have clearly illustrated they are incapable of common sense and courtesy to others. Big fines and big tickets and confiscation of boat until mandatory trial date is the start. Without a consequence, you have no stick. Wake boats are a nuisance and threat to public safety and need to be regulated under nuisance laws and public safety laws. The 150 marker needs to be updated to real world conditions and referenced in amplitude at impact zone and not distance.
How is it possible that the lake has managed to go this long without a modified and updated boat wake law. Maybe a web site where impacted third parties can upload videos of bouncing houseboats and tag numbers of offending boat that forces a responding ranger. How about staging a ranger in padre everyday, able to respond to the endless 16 calls from rocking and rolling houseboats.
99% of wake boat drivers are jerks.
And yes, there is shore erosion with every single wake impact.
Who makes the laws for powell and how do we contact them to ask them to update the law on boats with big wakes at powell. The problem is only getting worse - more boats and a smaller lake.
Ryan
Keeper of San Juan Secrets
I’ve spent 5 years in pharma, and the last 15 in Med device. I’m very familiar with studies.
There is always fear of bias from whomever is funding a study. I’ve never seen documented evidence of it though.
I am 100% certain of a couple of things.
First, anytime a study comes out, there will be people who push back on the outcome. Claiming bias, or poor design.
2nd. I am absolutely BAFFLED that many of the same individuals that are complaining about lack of enforcement of rules like a “no wake” zone near the marinas, which are highly populated, and in NPS backyard think that more regulations will have a positive effect on the lake. Especially regulations in areas that are many, many miles away from any enforcement. Someone explain to me how exactly that would work???
There is always fear of bias from whomever is funding a study. I’ve never seen documented evidence of it though.
I am 100% certain of a couple of things.
First, anytime a study comes out, there will be people who push back on the outcome. Claiming bias, or poor design.
2nd. I am absolutely BAFFLED that many of the same individuals that are complaining about lack of enforcement of rules like a “no wake” zone near the marinas, which are highly populated, and in NPS backyard think that more regulations will have a positive effect on the lake. Especially regulations in areas that are many, many miles away from any enforcement. Someone explain to me how exactly that would work???
Neil
Well-Known Member
Been fishing, boating, skiing, plus other unnamed activities at our Lake Powell since 1966. Owned 8 different types of boats, all kept in Page. Never was stopped, inspected or harassed by NPS, Az or Ut game wardens, during the last 6+ decades. Been a resident now for 3 years. Nothing has changed except we traded tour boats for wake boats. Still no enforcement. PS the floating outhouses used to function.
David A Dexter
Well-Known Member
In 2019, we had just beached our houseboat in Padre Bay. I beached my Ranger RT188 on the shore as did my nephew with his 17 foot Stenson Sled. We were burying anchors to secure the houseboat when a large wake boat went by with a surfer not far from shore. I was shocked by the approaching wave. I ran to my boat to see what I could do but the wave completely covered and swamped my boat. I was standing in the middle of it and the wave came over my boat and hit me at waist level. All my PFD's exploded even though they were under seats. All my manuals, everything was flooded. What a mess. Our other boat was completed flooded as well. It was a learning experience. I bought a bigger deep water Ranger and we don't camp with the houseboat in the main channel anymore. Despite this terrible experience, I support wake boats in the main channel, but there is zero justification to use them in the canyons especially with low water conditions. What really bothered me was the wake boat came back after reversing direction and swamped us again with the driver laughing and waving. Really? it never ceases to amaze me how people don't learn how to safely operate boats, not to mention ethics and common courtesy. The vast majority of boat operators, especially fishermen, look out for everyone else, after all, Lake Powell can dish out near death experiences at will. I know, I've personally experienced them, more to the point, survived them, but that's nature. Wake boats are positive for lakes and other boaters? I think not.
VikingRanch
Well-Known Member
We were camped in Oak last fall. One other boat in the whole bay. They flew their drone over and hovered it right over us for awhile. My wife talked me out of going to have a conversation with them.
Wrist rocket with 24” of fishing line with a jig at each end, Bolo style.
“What? I brought your drone down?
That is impossible because drones are illegal at Powell…”.
VikingRanch
Well-Known Member
I’d be more inclined towards small rocks and sisal twine, I’ve cleaned up too much old fishing gear in the last couple years. I was digging out my flare gun when it finally left.
svivian
Escalante-Class Member
Peto is that you?
Michael Pyle
Well-Known Member
we ran up the lake from Antelope to CID. Had never been there. Once above Rock creek it was so calm and quiet. We stopped in front of the entrance to Rainbow Bridge and had lunch. was there for maybe 30 minutes and only saw one boat. Pretty cool.
Wasn't sure what to expect from CID, it was cool but not sure it was worth the trip. LOL
Wasn't sure what to expect from CID, it was cool but not sure it was worth the trip. LOL
gianni
Member
Whats the story on your boat, make model etc?
Michael Pyle
Well-Known Member
Its a 2019 Axopar 37 Sun top. They are made in Finland.
we think its a perfect Powell tour boat. it has a nice cabin with flushing LAV, AC, and sink. Perfect for overnighting.
It maxes out at 54mph but we can cruise at 40mph. has 192 gallon fuel tank so good range.
The hull is super efficient and is a beast in the big stuff. The knife bow cuts thru the waves and the boat rides flat. We have had 18 people on it doing 35 mph in the narrows with big chop and it was super comfortable.
We first saw one in St Thomas customs dock and thought wow that looks cool. they use them as taxi's down there. Its a true ocean boat Category B classification. Which is offshore to 200 miles and up to 13ft swells. So it can handle Powell. Haha
Mike
we think its a perfect Powell tour boat. it has a nice cabin with flushing LAV, AC, and sink. Perfect for overnighting.
It maxes out at 54mph but we can cruise at 40mph. has 192 gallon fuel tank so good range.
The hull is super efficient and is a beast in the big stuff. The knife bow cuts thru the waves and the boat rides flat. We have had 18 people on it doing 35 mph in the narrows with big chop and it was super comfortable.
We first saw one in St Thomas customs dock and thought wow that looks cool. they use them as taxi's down there. Its a true ocean boat Category B classification. Which is offshore to 200 miles and up to 13ft swells. So it can handle Powell. Haha
Mike
nzaugg
Keeper of San Juan Secrets
That is really sweet! Can you surf behind it?
Michael Pyle
Well-Known Member
Oh gosh, I hope not. LOL
I sold our surf boat to get this so I didn't have to be in the slave drivers seat just towing people all day. Just not my idea of a good day on the lake. We hav friends with surf boats I can send our kids to. LOL
Mike
Canyon Gypsy
Active Member
Great boat!!!! Nice concept. Looks like a great cruiser.
- Status