Wakesurfing = Negligent Boater Operation???

[chadster2]

If you don't have any teak can you still be teak surfing?
Who named it that ? I'm not going to court over that but
P L E A S E
The law SUCKS hind tit on a boar hog (sotospeak)

[SPBFAN]

I agree that on an I/O this should not be allowed but on and Inboard for sure. If we can get them to back of this for inboards I bet we increase the sales of inboard boats. We should all get a commission for the sale of inboards if we can educate and win this one.

Way to go with setting up a meeting to demo the procedure.

[Sapiens Omna]

05. Unsafe Operation – Person In Vicinity of Vessel. Operating a motorboat, or engaging the engine of
an idle motorboat, when someone is occupying the water in a manner or in proximity to the vessels propulsion and or
exhaust so as to create a safety hazard. Examples of unlawful activity would include the practice of teak surfing or
wake surfing. ( )[/QUOTE]

Changing the law will take great patience. I think you have a good argument to fight the language of the statute using its plain language. There are several elements that must be satisfied to be found guilty of "Unsafe Operation." First one must be operating a motor boat (or engaging the engine of an idle boat.) Second someone must be occupying the water in proximity to the propulsion and/or exhaust. Third, there must be a safety hazard.

The real questions is what does "proximity" and "safety hazard" mean. I think you have a good argument that wake surfing behind a vdrive boat does not satisfy the second and third parts of the test because the prop is so far underneath the boat, the exhaust vents beneath the boat into the water and the design of a vdrive boat eliminates any safety hazard.

I will be curious to see how this turns out for you. Good luck

[Surfdad]

Hey guys, did that law actually get adpoted? They only held public hearing in late '07 and if you read the URL that contained that law, there was a proposed rule that eliminated the reference to wake surfing.



http://www.adm.idaho.gov/adminrules/.../bul/07nov.pdf

IDAPA 26 - DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
26.01.30 - IDAHO SAFE BOATING RULES
DOCKET NO. 26-0130-0701
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
AUTHORITY: In compliance with Sections 67-5221(1) and 67-5222, Idaho Code, notice is hereby given that this
agency has scheduled a public hearing and extended the period of public comment. The action is authorized pursuant
to Section 67-4249, Idaho Code.
PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE: Public hearing(s) concerning this rulemaking will be held as follows:
Wednesday, November 14, 2007 -- 6:00 - 7:30 pm
Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation Headquarters
5657 Warm Springs Ave.
Boise, Idaho
Thursday, November 15, 2007 -- 6:00 - 7:30 pm
Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation
East Region Office
4279 Commerce Circle
Idaho Falls, Idaho
The hearing site(s) will be accessible to persons with disabilities. Requests for accommodation must be made not
later than five (5) days prior to the hearing, to the agency address below.
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY: The summary of this action is found in Idaho Administrative Bulletin Vol. 07-10,
October 3, 2007, Book 2, pages 186 and 187.
ASSISTANCE ON TECHNICAL QUESTIONS: For assistance on technical questions concerning this rulemaking
or the hearing schedule, contact Dean Sangrey, 208-514-2260, dsangrey@idpr.idaho.gov.
Anyone may submit written comments at the public hearing regarding this rulemaking. Any written comments
submitted at a public hearing carry the same weight as oral testimony.
DATED this 19th day of October, 2007.
Dean Sangrey
Administrator, Division of Operations
Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation
5657 Warm Springs Ave.
Boise, ID 83716
PO Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0065
208-514-2260
208-334-3741(FAX)

In the published bulletin, which was what the public hearing contained, they show the proposed rule as amended:

Page 187

http://www.adm.idaho.gov/adminrules/.../07octvol2.pdf

05. Unsafe Operation - Person in Vicinity of Vessel. Operating a motorboat, or engaging the engine
of an idle motorboat, when someone is occupying the water in a manner or in proximity to the vessel’s propulsion
and/or exhaust so as to create a safety hazard. ( )


In THAT text, they removed references to wakesurfing and the text listed above I believe is inaccurate. Although, I do believe that this wording does allow local interpretation and it would be GREAT if someone could fight the ticket to establish a precedent.

[LovinPowell]

Thanks, Surfdad. I always feel better when you add your insight.

[Bandsecurity]

It does look like the law does not include the reference to surfing. I saw the info that that was posted above but the hearing was after the published date of the rukes so I assummed it had been adopted but it was not -
http://adm.idaho.gov/adminrules/rules/idapa26/0130.pdf

also see 3/4 of the way down in left column on page 68 -
http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/ses...als/hday31.pdf

[jleger98]

I've seen a news report on here that might help
Don't remember where.
I used to think it ment holding onto the teak....

Here is a link I found to the CT govt site on "teak surfing": http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?A=2686&Q=322312
I totally see where they would consider this dangerous. I mean who really needs a face-full of exhaust, their shorts around their ankles or a prop in the yapper.

I think that is VERY different than a "teak start" where you take off from the swim platform and start surfing right away. Its too bad that they are in the same sentance in that law.

All that said, there is a problem with law enforcement not understanding the sport. Here is a link to a thread from a while ago when a local TV station did a story on Wakesurfing. Hopefully the video is still there.http://www.tigeowners.com/forum/show...&highlight=die

[jbar]

Why the reference to surfing was removed - IDAHO

Below you will find a memo written the subcommittee in reference to the "teak surfing or wake surfing" portion of the proposed (at the time) statute. It appears that it was removed as the language was directed at the surfer and not the boat driver which was not consistent with the rest of the statute. Evidently, according to this memo, they thought that the language that survived would make surfing illegal anyway! NOT GOOD. This needs to be clarified (inboard vs. i/o & outboards)
John

http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/ses...2601300701.pdf
Here is the memo:

REVISED AND SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Rules Review Subcommittee of the Senate Resources & Environment Committee and the
House Resources & Conservation Committee
FROM: Research & Legislation Staff - Katharine Gerrity
DATE: August 31, 2007
SUBJECT: Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation
1. IDAPA 26.01.30 - Idaho Safe Boating Rules
2. IDAPA 26.01.20 - Rules Governing The Administration Of Park And
Recreation Areas And Facilities
This memorandum is sent to revise and supplement our original memorandum sent to members
on August 30, 2007. That memorandum contained an incorrect date of review. The date should have
been noted as August 30, 2007. In addition, we are supplementing the memorandum to add a further
suggestion and comment relating to the Department’s proposed rule at IDAPA 26.01.30 - Idaho Safe
Boating Rules. Our initial comment relating to that rule was as follows:
We suggest that the Department consider rewording the last sentence of Subsection 525.05. The
current proposed language is “(e)xamples of unlawful activity would include the practice of teak surfing
or wake surfing.” The subsection is aimed at unsafe operation of a vessel. The proposed language noted
above, on its face, appears to make it unlawful to teak surf or wake surf. We suggest considering a
change such as “(e)xamples of unlawful activity would include the operation of a vessel when a person in
the vicinity of the vessel is teak surfing or wake surfing.”
After continued consideration and conversation with a legislative member, the Department may
want to consider completely eliminating the example reference relating to wake surfing and teak surfing.
Even if the proposed rule is changed to make it clear that the rule is aimed at operation of the vessel as
opposed to the act of wake surfing or teak surfing, the practical result is the same - prohibition of wake
and teak surfing. The remainder of the subsection would still prohibit unsafe operation of a vessel in the
event a person is in the vicinity of the vessel.
cc: Idaho Dept. of Parks and Recreation
Dean Sangrey

[LovinPowell]

I would still like to see them provide evidence that wake surfing is illegal, if they even know what wakesurfing is.

[malarson]

I talked to the Idaho Boating Law Administrator (yes there is one) on the phone yesterday. Actually the Administrator is on vacation, I talked to his assistant (taxpayers dollars at work but that's for another time).
He pointed out that it was up to the deputy to interpret what is and isn't neglegent operation. He also mentioned that in his home county the sheriffs dept. has a guideline of 10 feet.
I wish I had been thinking at the time, does that mean 10 feet from the exhaust port to my nose? Or does that mean 10 feet from the swim step to the tip of my board? He also let me know that it was his opinion that the greater danger was from CO and not the prop.
After much research I can't find documentation of even 1 death while wakesurfing. I can however find hundreds of deaths from fishing.
Anyway, I ordered my FAE yesterday. I hope it comes before I meet with the prosecutor.

[jleger98]

I talked to the Idaho Boating Law Administrator (yes there is one) on the phone yesterday. Actually the Administrator is on vacation, I talked to his assistant (taxpayers dollars at work but that's for another time).
He pointed out that it was up to the deputy to interpret what is and isn't neglegent operation. He also mentioned that in his home county the sheriffs dept. has a guideline of 10 feet.
I wish I had been thinking at the time, does that mean 10 feet from the exhaust port to my nose? Or does that mean 10 feet from the swim step to the tip of my board? He also let me know that it was his opinion that the greater danger was from CO2 and not the prop.
After much research I can't find documentation of even 1 death while wakesurfing. I can however find hundreds of deaths from fishing.
Anyway, I ordered my FAE yesterday. I hope it comes before I meet with the prosecutor.

Two things -
1. Did this administrators assistant sound knowledgeable about what wakesurfing is and the fact that its probably more dangerous to be in the boat in regards to CO2? (what did someone call it... the tailgate effect???)
2. Has he ever heard of FAE? (BTW) let Larry at FAE know that you need it by a certain date and why, I'll bet he'll put a rush on it for you.

[malarson]

The assistant seemed to be familiar with wakesurfing and the station wagon effect. I didn't bring up the FAE topic with him. He wanted to do all the talking.
Larry at FAE was very helpful and sent me some documentation on CO and how it related to FAE. and he was able to send my FAE off for powdercoating the very same day. That's what I call service!!!
Question for the forum. Would a home Carbon Monoxide detector be an effective measure of safe levels of CO on a boat?

[chpthril]

CO is Carbon Monoxide = bad stuff

CO2 is Carbon Dioxide = ok stuff

[jleger98]

CO is Carbon Monoxide = bad stuff

CO2 is Carbon Dioxide = ok stuff

What he said.

[dogbert]

The assistant seemed to be familiar with wakesurfing and the station wagon effect. I didn't bring up the FAE topic with him. He wanted to do all the talking.
Larry at FAE was very helpful and sent me some documentation on CO and how it related to FAE. and he was able to send my FAE off for powdercoating the very same day. That's what I call service!!!
Question for the forum. Would a home Carbon Monoxide detector be an effective measure of safe levels of CO on a boat?

It would certainly alarm if there was an unsafe presence of CO if it's a battery operated model. It's actually a really good idea.

As for the FAE, as I mentioned, the local authorities here have actually asked me about my FAE and then left me alone when I explained to them why I had it. I also showed them my custom-fabbed rope I was using at the time. I was happy to talk to them and they were interested. It wasn't super busy or super nuts, so that's why they probably took the time. If it were a holiday weekend, I'd expect them to take a more no-nonsense attitude. I respect them for what they have to do, so I try to make it as hassle-free as possible for them to talk to me.

My suggestion to you, given what you learned, is to spend some time with your local law enforcement if that's possible. If they know you're focused on safety, then they'll usually give you the benefit of the doubt. I'd ask lots of questions before jumping to any conclusions.