LOTO Wake Legislation

[nmriordan]

For you fellow Lake of the Ozark Tige Owner's... I've been following the discussion on the wake "issues" at LOTO on Midwest Boat Party and the local state representatives' statements about what they're planning to propose as new legislation to address the issue. I found this excerpt from Rep. David Wood. I'm not sure if it's comical or freightening that he basically says that wake boarders and wake surfers can still board/surf in the Park or other unpopulated areas. For those not familiar with LOTO, he's basically referring to 1% of the lake where his legislation would allow for surfing or boarding (or, I presume, for me to pull my 6 year old skiing at 10 MPH since that would be classified as "plowing" too). Maybe I'm thinking about this all wrong... maybe it would be nice to take a 1 hour boat ride each way through the roughest/busiest parts of the lake to go get in a quick 15 minute surf session in an "unpopulated" part of the lake...

"The legislation concerning boating at the Lake of the Ozarks, which I will be filing in December, will have 4 major points...

1- Create an infraction for “Plowing” in a populated area of the lake. The concern was expressed that all size boats operating with the bow in the air is damaging. This needs to be addressed by the action and not the boat. Every boat going from idle to a plane has to plow but the definition for the infraction will be for boats creating the maximum wake and maintaining that speed. Every ticket that is issued on the lake is a Class B Misdemeanor so this will give the Water Division of the Highway Patrol a different option. This is limited to populated areas so the wake boarders would be welcome in the parks and unpopulated areas of the lake...................."

[007]

So, I have a condo in the State Park, big fan of that area being exempted (not a big fan of legislation though), but don't want the world to come visit me just to do water sports (kinda ruins the ambiance). Does this legislation apply to cruisers also??? Idiot i/o drivers pulling a tube???

Define "populated areas of the lake".

An who the hell would wakeboard/surf on the "populated" main channel except in off season anyway? It too rough out there and it has nothing to do with wake boats for the most part.

No doubt we as wake boaters carry a burden to make sure we don't harm others and destroy their use of the lake, but for LOTO specifically, this seems like treating one symptom, not the disease.

[M&M]

2000 20ci Gravois Mills, loto. What??? No wake weekend last 4th of July was nice for a flooded weekend, but... Are you suggesting no wake loto except in unpopulated areas. It will not pass. Is this to much wake? M&MBen%20Happy%20on%20stool%20July%202012.jpg

[007]

I read a little more on this. I don't think this is a direct attack on wake boats, probably more on big cruisers, but we will get lumped in as a problem.

[007]

Just thought I would share this exchange with Rep. Wood. I've made an investment in my property and my boat at the lake, I want to protect how I enjoy using it. Voting counts in the end but it is as important to make your voice heard when you can.

-------

I understand your concern and I believe that a compromise on the wake boats will occur. You are correct in saying that there is a diverse population at the Lake of the Ozarks so this will be an interesting journey. I will not make some people happy no matter what I do and I do firmly believe that the changes in boat traffic at the Lake at least need the discussion brought on by filing the legislation. Thanks for the email and sharing your concerns.

David

Representative David Wood
District 58
573-751-2077
David.Wood@house.mo.gov

From: Jeff
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 3:30 PM
To: David Wood
Subject: Wake legislation

Hi David,

I just became aware of the wake legislation being proposed for LOTO.

We wake surf, so by definition we are trying to create big wakes. We wake surf in the state park where we have a condo. This was the most ideal choice for us because of our hobby and because the main channel was too dangerous for our 23’ boat to traverse regularly. In fact, the first time we nudged out of the no-wake area by the bridge into the main channel we took rollers over the bow scaring the kids and guests. I’ve not been able to run the main channel with safety or comfort in summer season for years in my size boat.

I don’t envy your challenge in crafting legislation to reduce wakes at the Lake of the Ozarks. In fact, I am leery of it because I am not sure how it could be done fairly or effectively.

That said, I understand part of your proposal is to have no restrictions in “unpopulated” areas such as the state park. My fear is bottle necking activity in one area like that will negatively affect dock and property owners there with an excessive amount of traffic in one area. I can tell you one of the scariest times I have had on the lake was during fall foliage season when a bunch of cruisers rolled through the narrow state park and tossed my boat so badly it threw my passengers off their feet violently. If you force wake creators/users into a more confined space on the lake, it seems you are just moving the problem from one area to another. There may be fewer docks there, but there are docks there.

There needs to be respect for all, and unfortunately that is often missing. Fishermen and wake boats have different uses of the same body of water. I try to give them a wide berth, but I know sometimes I can’t. Most fishermen are decent guys, but some plow through the no wake zone 20 feet off my dock like the rules don’t apply to them, tossing the boats on the dock. And I am not only picking on cruisers either, I’ve had grandparents and parents plow closely past my boat when are rest and inside the no wake area of my dock in small family runabouts and pontoons. Some boats are prone to throw bigger wakes, but users of all boats and activity types can cause damage.

Please only craft legislation if needed that can survive the long run with fairness for all uses of the lake, including wake and water sports enthusiasts. Don’t make people travel unsafe distances over the main channel for them to be bottle necked into small areas to enjoy their hobby. The wake problem is as much a matter of sheer number of boats and excessive size of boats as it is a matter of boat “action”.

Thank you for considering these concerns.

Sincerely,

[JLG]

I have followed the mwbp site also as those guys usually have the first insight on it. Crazy that the government can't stay the hell out of something like this! I agree that certain boaters need addressed and more training, or a smaller wallet will help in most cases! Most cruisers on Loto plow and have unreal large wakes. Can't see them passing anything to serious as the local business would lose out severely along with the state taxes they bring in.

[gasoline_24]

That would be interesting. Start arresting people and putting them in jail for creating a boat wake. Good way to ruin a weekend. Not to mention that boating under the influence is also a class B misdemeanor.

[nmriordan]

JLG, I hope you're right.

007, I agree that it's more of an indirect assault on wake boats, but something that could definitely affect us nonetheless. I specifically bought atLOTO because some of the more convenient/closer/smaller lakes didn't allow wake surfing. I will be pissed if legislation indirectly outlawing surfing passes..... thanks for sending Rep Wood such a well thought out note. I hope he considers the more moderate and level-headed position on this divisive topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BurnMac42]

Think it would do any good to give all the major manufactures or at the very least the regional sales managers/dealerships a heads up on this?

That can't be good for their bottom line in that area

[nmriordan]

I'm telling everyone I can...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[YoungRZ4]

I too have been following this discussion, We are currently in the middle of rebuilding our lake house and Rep. Woods current stance would essentially end watersports for us. Not only would it be unreasonable to travel from our location in Linn Creek cove all the way to the state park just for our morning Wakeboard run, but I can't imagine the overcrowding of the state park if this were to happen. Have the boat dealerships (Performance, Wake effects, etc) made any comments on this? Legislation limiting the location for our watersports of choice would greatly affect their sales. I don't think a bill of this sort will actually be passed, but I am surprised that the discussion has made it this far.

[YoungRZ4]

Rep. Woods filed his bill yesterday with a few changes:
http://www.lakenewsonline.com/articl...NEWS/151219091 "2. Boats over 30’ in length or boats that take on ballast to create a wake are not allowed to intentionally plow within 300’ of a dock, pier, or anchored boat. The original proposal would have moved all boats that were intentionally plowing to an unpopulated area of the lake. It was pointed out that this was too restrictive and that it would include a small fishing boat pulling an inner tube."

Can't wait to wakeboard on the main channel.

[007]

Hey, I get the other side of this, but 300ft. is a football field wide. How the hell am I going to avoid an anchored fisherman in a channel that is less than 300ft. wide??

And I can't round the corner where my dock is even on the other side of the channel with this 300 ft. rule. Uggg. I want a solution, but not one that makes it a complete pain in my butt or impossible to use my boat in the way it was intended.

[JLG]

What a joke for a law!! Can't imagine how many ppl will challenge their tickets if it passes. How the hell is the WP able to judge 300ft?? Even at that everyones opinion on eyeing 300ft is different. Hope this all passes over and soon! Wonder what this azz hat has to gain from all the troubles he is causing rather then helping?

[nmriordan]

For anyone wanting to help make sure our voices are heard, I suggest clicking on this link to look up your rep: http://house.mo.gov/legislatorlookup.aspx. Once you find your local rep, click on his or her email and send them a thoughtful email outlining why you oppose the bill. I would also suggest sending the same email to Rep. Wood at David.Wood@house.mo.gov or calling him at 573-751-2077 to explain your position.

I had a nice phone conversation with Mr. Wood and explained my personal position. I have followed up with an email as 007 did.