No Wake in any coves at LOTO!!!
02-05-2004, 02:07 PM
#52
Registered
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: ST. Louis, MO, USA
Posts: 1,658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
waterbum
While you're absolutely correct, you missed the real intent of the bill: To appease the vocal lake residents without losing the bass boat tournaments. The no wake makes the residents happy. The length provision leaves the bass boats out of it. In the past, the bass boat tournament "lobby" has fought a lot of lake restrictions. Leave them out, and the laws go through easier.
Gary
While you're absolutely correct, you missed the real intent of the bill: To appease the vocal lake residents without losing the bass boat tournaments. The no wake makes the residents happy. The length provision leaves the bass boats out of it. In the past, the bass boat tournament "lobby" has fought a lot of lake restrictions. Leave them out, and the laws go through easier.
Gary
02-05-2004, 02:30 PM
#53
Registered
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Overland Park, KS
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would also affect Big Thunder, Beauty View Resort (forget the new name), and Wolf Harbor Resort.
We are about half way down the cove towards Frankie and Louies. Ever since they opened, there has been a ton of boat traffic headed in and out. It' not the number of boats, it's the cruisers plowing by that cause the monster wakes.
Gary - Good point, just seems underhanded to ask lake residents in a cove if they would like to reduce the wave action by limiting boat activity. Who would say "no" to that question. It also appeared that the bills original intent was to raise the registration fees. Thats fine with me since they are extremely low now. I just don't like the additional attachment (smells like politics at its worst).
We are about half way down the cove towards Frankie and Louies. Ever since they opened, there has been a ton of boat traffic headed in and out. It' not the number of boats, it's the cruisers plowing by that cause the monster wakes.
Gary - Good point, just seems underhanded to ask lake residents in a cove if they would like to reduce the wave action by limiting boat activity. Who would say "no" to that question. It also appeared that the bills original intent was to raise the registration fees. Thats fine with me since they are extremely low now. I just don't like the additional attachment (smells like politics at its worst).
02-05-2004, 03:13 PM
#54
Registered
Here is the letter that I have sent him regarding this issue.
To the Honorable Dr. Wayne Cooper
Dear Dr. Cooper,
As a full time resident, lake front property owner at the 27 mile marker, registered Republican voter in Camden County and a property tax payer I must voice my strenuous objection to your recently proposed bill concerning no wake provisions at the Lake of the Ozarks.
While I respect your noble gesture to allow people with all types of boats to enjoy the lake I believe that there is a major flaw and oversimplification to your proposal in classifying all boats of greater than 26 feet in length to a no wake speed in all coves upon a vote of the adjacent land owners. As I am sure you are aware, the length of a boat is only one part of the equation regarding the wake that a given boat will produce. Other factors such as speed, beam, weight and maneuvering will also greatly affect the wake produced. A 25 foot boat operating at just under planeing speed will produce a wake much larger than a larger boat operating above it’s planeing speed.
I have read online at the Missouri Water Patrol’s home page the accident reports for the lake over the last two years and I find very little, if any reason, to support this type of legislation from a safety standpoint. Most of the accidents were the result of driver inattention, neglect for current boating safety rules and/or alcohol. Such was the instance of the well publicized fatal accident between Party Cove and the Grand Glaize bridge. This 31 foot boat was operated while un-seaworthy with the operator wedging a piece of styrofoam under the bilge pump switch to hopefully keep the boat afloat while he took friends or members of his family to Party Cove. This was an absolute case of negligence on the part of the operator of the vessel with fatal consequences. Yet this incident is referred to in news articles and quotes attributed to you as an example of the dangers wakes present here at the lake. Many other accidents are because boats are operated when overloaded or operated in an un-seaworthy condition, yet if one is swamped it is invariable attributed to wakes.
I strongly feel that it is unnecessary to limit the operations of vessels on the lake because of damage to privately owned property. Each year I do repairs and maintenance to my dock and lift, however I see this as the price I pay for being a lake front resident. The lake is accessible and useable to all boats during off peak times which constitutes a majority of the boating year including Monday through Friday, holidays and weekends up until about 12 noon and after 7pm. Even most Sunday afternoons after 3pm or 4pm are reasonably calm in most areas of the lake. I would also like to point out those areas of the lake past the 32 mile marker, or so, are rarely if ever congested or contain vessels of size and quantity as to pose a threat to even the smallest boats. This area constitutes almost 35 percent of the lakes surface area and gives ample area for smaller boats to operate during the few peak hours you have chosen.
The main wake problems on the lake are from about the 2 mile marker to Tan-Tar-A or about the 21 mile marker. Your proposal will not do anything to relieve the wake induced waves in this area and people in small boats will still try to venture to Party Cove or the Dam at times that may not be conducive to their equipment. I liken this to people who feel the need to drive when roads are icy in rear wheel drive vehicles in that sometimes you have to use your own judgment before venturing out.
I while I am not completely opposed to your legislation to increase boater registration fees, I am afraid that you will do what the legislature tries so desperately to hide and that is to give an increase fees to the Water Patrol and the take funds out the back door for the general fund usage and the net effect is a larger burden on the tax payer and a net zero effect for the Water Patrol. The best example that I can give you of this practice is what the state legislature has continued to do with the education budget and has been admitted time and again off the record by your peers.
In closing unless you withdraw you legislation I will be unable to support a bid for your re-election either financially or with my vote.
Sincerely,
Michael E. Alford
Osage Beach, MO
To the Honorable Dr. Wayne Cooper
Dear Dr. Cooper,
As a full time resident, lake front property owner at the 27 mile marker, registered Republican voter in Camden County and a property tax payer I must voice my strenuous objection to your recently proposed bill concerning no wake provisions at the Lake of the Ozarks.
While I respect your noble gesture to allow people with all types of boats to enjoy the lake I believe that there is a major flaw and oversimplification to your proposal in classifying all boats of greater than 26 feet in length to a no wake speed in all coves upon a vote of the adjacent land owners. As I am sure you are aware, the length of a boat is only one part of the equation regarding the wake that a given boat will produce. Other factors such as speed, beam, weight and maneuvering will also greatly affect the wake produced. A 25 foot boat operating at just under planeing speed will produce a wake much larger than a larger boat operating above it’s planeing speed.
I have read online at the Missouri Water Patrol’s home page the accident reports for the lake over the last two years and I find very little, if any reason, to support this type of legislation from a safety standpoint. Most of the accidents were the result of driver inattention, neglect for current boating safety rules and/or alcohol. Such was the instance of the well publicized fatal accident between Party Cove and the Grand Glaize bridge. This 31 foot boat was operated while un-seaworthy with the operator wedging a piece of styrofoam under the bilge pump switch to hopefully keep the boat afloat while he took friends or members of his family to Party Cove. This was an absolute case of negligence on the part of the operator of the vessel with fatal consequences. Yet this incident is referred to in news articles and quotes attributed to you as an example of the dangers wakes present here at the lake. Many other accidents are because boats are operated when overloaded or operated in an un-seaworthy condition, yet if one is swamped it is invariable attributed to wakes.
I strongly feel that it is unnecessary to limit the operations of vessels on the lake because of damage to privately owned property. Each year I do repairs and maintenance to my dock and lift, however I see this as the price I pay for being a lake front resident. The lake is accessible and useable to all boats during off peak times which constitutes a majority of the boating year including Monday through Friday, holidays and weekends up until about 12 noon and after 7pm. Even most Sunday afternoons after 3pm or 4pm are reasonably calm in most areas of the lake. I would also like to point out those areas of the lake past the 32 mile marker, or so, are rarely if ever congested or contain vessels of size and quantity as to pose a threat to even the smallest boats. This area constitutes almost 35 percent of the lakes surface area and gives ample area for smaller boats to operate during the few peak hours you have chosen.
The main wake problems on the lake are from about the 2 mile marker to Tan-Tar-A or about the 21 mile marker. Your proposal will not do anything to relieve the wake induced waves in this area and people in small boats will still try to venture to Party Cove or the Dam at times that may not be conducive to their equipment. I liken this to people who feel the need to drive when roads are icy in rear wheel drive vehicles in that sometimes you have to use your own judgment before venturing out.
I while I am not completely opposed to your legislation to increase boater registration fees, I am afraid that you will do what the legislature tries so desperately to hide and that is to give an increase fees to the Water Patrol and the take funds out the back door for the general fund usage and the net effect is a larger burden on the tax payer and a net zero effect for the Water Patrol. The best example that I can give you of this practice is what the state legislature has continued to do with the education budget and has been admitted time and again off the record by your peers.
In closing unless you withdraw you legislation I will be unable to support a bid for your re-election either financially or with my vote.
Sincerely,
Michael E. Alford
Osage Beach, MO
Last edited by Von Bongo; 02-05-2004 at 04:10 PM.
02-05-2004, 04:13 PM
#55
Registered
Originally posted by Gary Anderson
waterbum
While you're absolutely correct, you missed the real intent of the bill: To appease the vocal lake residents without losing the bass boat tournaments. The no wake makes the residents happy. The length provision leaves the bass boats out of it. In the past, the bass boat tournament "lobby" has fought a lot of lake restrictions. Leave them out, and the laws go through easier.
Gary
waterbum
While you're absolutely correct, you missed the real intent of the bill: To appease the vocal lake residents without losing the bass boat tournaments. The no wake makes the residents happy. The length provision leaves the bass boats out of it. In the past, the bass boat tournament "lobby" has fought a lot of lake restrictions. Leave them out, and the laws go through easier.
Gary
02-05-2004, 09:46 PM
#56
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Heeee, what's a no wake zone again? 
We might have gay people marrying but we don't have any "no wake" zone to speak of on our 20 miles by 120 miles lake. (Of course currently it's a big freakn hockey rink!)
We might have gay people marrying but we don't have any "no wake" zone to speak of on our 20 miles by 120 miles lake. (Of course currently it's a big freakn hockey rink!)
02-06-2004, 05:24 PM
#58
Registered
Today's lake sun article. 1/2 of the boating deaths were related to alchol.
Ups and downs of BWI
By Joyce L. Miller/Lake Sun
LAKE OF THE OZARKS - Missouri Water Patrol officials are not happy with 2003 year-end statistics that point to a decrease in drunk boating arrests while boating-related deaths on Lake of the Ozarks more than doubled from 2002.
Water Patrol officials say there is a direct link between manpower shortages on Lake of the Ozarks, declining arrests and the increase in fatalities.
In 2002, two people died in boating accidents on the lake compared to eight in 2003. Of those, the Water Patrol says half were alcohol or drug related. Drownings are not included in the boating-related fatality figure.
Between '02 and '03, BWI arrests on the lake dropped from 332 to 188, a more than 50 percent decrease from prior years when the Missouri Water Patrol led the nation in BWI arrests, Water Patrol Corporal Nick Humphrey said.
Humphrey says the drop in arrests is related to a loss of approximately 33 percent of the officers assigned to Lake of the Ozark. Most of those officers left for higher paying jobs with other law enforcement agencies, he said.
The number of officers on the lake dropped to 13 in 2003. Between 1998 and 2002, the Water Patrol maintained between 18 and 20 officers on the lake. There will be 15 officers on the lake in 2004.
"We did run into manpower problems last season," Humphrey said. "Anytime that happens the potential to enforce boating safety laws decreases. That substantially cuts down on the number of drunk driving arrests leaving more operators out there and fewer chances of getting caught."
The Water Patrol discontinued sobriety checkpoints in 2003. At the time, officials said they didn't have the manpower to run the checkpoints that were set up about four times a year.
Humphrey said there also does appear to be an increase in boater awareness that is figuring into the statistics.
Humphrey said the Water Patrol has sent a clear message to boaters over the last several years about the importance of safe and responsible boating. The problem in 2003 was enforcing that message.
"There are a number of factors that have to be taken into consideration," Humphrey said. "From all indications, there are more boaters coming to Lake of the Ozarks and we are handling more complaint calls. We are also patrolling several large no-wake areas including the Grand Glaize Arm, Anderson Hollow Cove and Backwater Jacks Cove at the 17-mile marker on weekends and holidays."
Ups and downs of BWI
By Joyce L. Miller/Lake Sun
LAKE OF THE OZARKS - Missouri Water Patrol officials are not happy with 2003 year-end statistics that point to a decrease in drunk boating arrests while boating-related deaths on Lake of the Ozarks more than doubled from 2002.
Water Patrol officials say there is a direct link between manpower shortages on Lake of the Ozarks, declining arrests and the increase in fatalities.
In 2002, two people died in boating accidents on the lake compared to eight in 2003. Of those, the Water Patrol says half were alcohol or drug related. Drownings are not included in the boating-related fatality figure.
Between '02 and '03, BWI arrests on the lake dropped from 332 to 188, a more than 50 percent decrease from prior years when the Missouri Water Patrol led the nation in BWI arrests, Water Patrol Corporal Nick Humphrey said.
Humphrey says the drop in arrests is related to a loss of approximately 33 percent of the officers assigned to Lake of the Ozark. Most of those officers left for higher paying jobs with other law enforcement agencies, he said.
The number of officers on the lake dropped to 13 in 2003. Between 1998 and 2002, the Water Patrol maintained between 18 and 20 officers on the lake. There will be 15 officers on the lake in 2004.
"We did run into manpower problems last season," Humphrey said. "Anytime that happens the potential to enforce boating safety laws decreases. That substantially cuts down on the number of drunk driving arrests leaving more operators out there and fewer chances of getting caught."
The Water Patrol discontinued sobriety checkpoints in 2003. At the time, officials said they didn't have the manpower to run the checkpoints that were set up about four times a year.
Humphrey said there also does appear to be an increase in boater awareness that is figuring into the statistics.
Humphrey said the Water Patrol has sent a clear message to boaters over the last several years about the importance of safe and responsible boating. The problem in 2003 was enforcing that message.
"There are a number of factors that have to be taken into consideration," Humphrey said. "From all indications, there are more boaters coming to Lake of the Ozarks and we are handling more complaint calls. We are also patrolling several large no-wake areas including the Grand Glaize Arm, Anderson Hollow Cove and Backwater Jacks Cove at the 17-mile marker on weekends and holidays."
02-06-2004, 05:26 PM
#59
Registered
I am going to compose another letter to Dr. Cooper quoting some of these factors that the WP sights, such as alcohol, lack of officers and the man power drain to enforce the proposed new no wake zones.
