I'm a frequent LOTO boater so this really doesn't come as a shock to me.

http://www.lakesunleader.com/article...08/news/03.txt

might have something to do with the number of boats in such a concentrated area.

And the number of bars you can reach by boat.
And the fact it's easy to set up a checkpoint across the whole channel at closing time.
They used to put 12 WP boats out at midnight and have 12 BUIs by 1 AM and take them back to the station. Then they discovered the WP boats could drop the arrested off at a mobile unit on shore and come back out on the water to get more. They can rack up a lot of BUIs sitting a mile off a popular bar when there's limited directions to go from there.
I've been through about 20 checkpoints on the lake (never had a problem) and only 1 in my car.
BTW, they're pushing for 0.08 BAL next year, so ask santa for a breathalizer this year.

When I read the companion article about lowering the BAL, I was wondering how changing the level for BWI would have any effect of those people that fell off the dock and drowned?

'When looking at the 10 fatalities that occurred on Lake of the Ozarks this summer, five involved individuals consuming alcohol and/or drugs who fell off boats or docks and drowned,' Water Patrol Captain Matt Walz said.

Just WTF does falling off the dock or being on drugs and drowning have to do with changing the BAL???? How many of those that fell off the boats and drowned were driving?? this quote is just plain stupid. Either Captian Walz has an agenda or the reporter liked the quote and didn't care that it had nothing to do with BAL and driving.

I could care less whther the law is changed or not but don't just spew forth BS to try to make your case.

I have nothing for the highway patrol or the lake patrol.

I'm surprised that Florida didn't lead it, since we have about four months longer to run boats. I think it is also because we don't have nearly the number of officers to cover all the water in the state. I do know on holiday weekends, they are all over on the St John's River, because it's easier to watch a narrow spot of river, than it is the Atlantic Ocean.

As far as lowering the intoxicated levels, I don't think it will lower the drunk boaters, but it will put more of them in what I refer to as the "Money Machine" which is what the state really wants.

Lowering the level could actually have a reverse effect. Our's here in Florida is currently 0.08, and there was talk about lowering it to 0.05. If they do that, some people might say, hell, I'm already past the legal limit after one beer, so I might as well have twenty.

I agree cuda. I am not trying to justify drinking and boating, but most people can(and do) enjoy a beer and drive. Why have any legal limit if you are just going to keep lowing it? Its all about the $$$ at this point.

I emailed the reporter for the article asking what the BAC levels were for operators involved in accidents. This is the meaningful statistic. She replied that the average was 0.14. Lowering the limit will not solve the problem. Stiffer penalties for the drunks would have a real impact.

You can get busted here in Florida, and have all kinds of charges against you for various things, but usually, if you'll plead guilty to the DUI, they will merge and dismiss the other charges, because they don't have to house you for jail time, and they get to bleed money from you.

Just as a side note, I never drink and drive on the boat, or the road. Not even one. I might get my drink on tonight as a matter of fact, but Debbie doesn't drink, so I always have a DD with me.

As always, when we boat at LOTO I am the DD as I am responsible for my passengers. I do enjoy the freedom of being able to enjoy a beer or two while on the water. I can say I have never approached 0.08, let alone the current limit of 0.10. If they wanted to save lives they should seize the assets (boats) of those that break the current laws. Dropping the limit to 0.08 will do NOTHING to solve the problem.