Proposed No Wake Zones - What you need to know, and what you can do

RiverDave said:

I appreciate that SRice and your comments are taken to heart.

The question still boils back to "Why?"

Click to expand...

SRice said:

No, silly, you paddle DOWN river not UP. And, like I said, I would be afraid to make the attempt in July so it will have to wait. You are braver, or maybe a little crazier, than me. I do appreciate your willingness to make the effort though, and as I stated earlier I personally agree that extending the no wake to the state line does not serve any management goal I know of any better than a couple hundred yard zone along the shore. That is why I recommend that SOMEBODY scribble that down as a comment and submit it for consideration. If the only comments FWS receives call for no action, they cannot improve the proposal and you may not like the result.

Click to expand...

RiverDave said:

The comment period is closed?

Click to expand...

SRice said:

I do believe the FWS would have the same authority to take action under certain circumstances in other areas of the Refuge. Obviously those who disagree with the Speed Alley restrictions will not agree. If the FWS did at some time in the future take action elsewhere in the Refuge (and I know of absolutely no such plan) I believe it would be under authorities the FWS already has and totally irrelevant of anything in the current CD.

Again, not my area of expertise but I think that's pretty much accurate.

Click to expand...

SRice said:

Sometime today- not sure exactly when or how that works. I decided to submit a comment myself suggesting a narrower no wake zone as discussed earlier in the thread. I do not know if, as an FWS employee, my comment will even be reviewed but I did send it. I used the email address and received the automated "thank you for your comment" response.

Spectra, I do not believe the local FWS is capable of assuming any extra authority through a compatability determination. This is not a part of my job and I'm not in any way an expert on NEPA, compatability determinations, or anything other than enforcing regulations after they are adopted, but I don't think anybody in the FWS intends this document as a grant of additional authority and don't think the system works that way. That said, I do believe my agency has always had the authority to create the no-wake zone in Speed Alley last year and I do believe the FWS would have the same authority to take action under certain circumstances in other areas of the Refuge. Obviously those who disagree with the Speed Alley restrictions will not agree. If the FWS did at some time in the future take action elsewhere in the Refuge (and I know of absolutely no such plan) I believe it would be under authorities the FWS already has and totally irrelevant of anything in the current CD.

Again, not my area of expertise but I think that's pretty much accurate.

Click to expand...

SRice said:

Thanks, River Dave- and I give you credit for telling folks the unpopular truth that the FWS has not proposed any changes up the river. I know some folks don't want to hear that and won't accept it regardless of the source. RD,
I investigated the initial Speed Alley report of harassing behavior by skiers versus kayaks and the suspects in that case admitted to me that they were too close and accepted a plea deal. I also took the report of a paddler who was struck by a boat on the lake about a year ago (the lake is only my jurisdiction under MOU with BOR, so I forwarded that incident to AZGFD. The powerboater's ID was unknown and to the best of my knowledge nobody was charged). I have reviewed the reports associated with 700+ water safety violations my officers have cited or warned for in the last four years that I have been supervisor. I have been first on scene for boating accidents on this lake and I've arrested my share of drunk boaters. I also listened to the owner of Desert River Kayakers who has documented dozens of instances when paddlers were overturned by the reckless operation of powerboats. She indicated that many of them were Boy Scouts and my own son is almost old enough to join the Scouts, so it is easy for me to imagine him in this situation. Google "most dangerous waterways in America" and you'll find about six of the top 15 are in Arizona, mostly on or along the Colorado River. Based on all of this and more, I believe we DO have a safety problem here at Lake Havasu. I appreciate your offer to go out on the water with you and perhaps will take you up on it at some point. I would ask though, would you be equally willing to paddle a kayak down the river any weekend in July? I would not and tell all of my paddler acquaintances to wait until November. My goal is a river where every user group can safely recreate on Lake Havasu year round, and that is not currently the case. I believe I gave you my number when we spoke at the Avi- give me a shout anytime.

Click to expand...

twocents said:

This is a comment about Steve Rice?s post #96 referring to Desert River Kayaks (sometimes referred to as Desert River Outfitters out of Bullhead). On numerous occasions I have observed Helen and her staff taking Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and other youth groups (ages 10 to 16 years I?m estimating) for kayaking tours through Havasu Refuge. The groups vary in number but usually 12 to 15 kayakers at a time, and most if not all appear to be novices at the sport. Although Helen and her staff are very experienced kayakers, to me, the exercise appears to be like herding cats on steroids. Kids are kids, they listen to instructions for a while (stay in a group, stay close to shore, don?t race, don?t lag behind, don?t leave the group, etc., etc.) but eventually the group mentality dissipates and some are way out in front, others are way behind, others are off in a cove exploring, and worst of all, some wind up in the middle or on the wrong side of the main channel mixed with heavy boat traffic. Plain and simple, this is a cattle-drive on water and although the kayak wranglers are experts, they can?t be everywhere at once. To attempt this activity on busy spring and summer weekends (or holidays) seems irresponsible to me. I might want to take a bicycle ride over Ortega Highway at 5pm during rush hour with the family, but it?s not that smart an idea. Last time I checked, there are seven days in a week and five of them are not weekends when power boat traffic is relatively light and safe for non-motorized boating recreation in the Refuge. I know, this is the age when everybody seems to want what they want, when they want it, all of the time. Sorry, it just doesn?t work like that. Motorized and non-motorized boaters should have equal access and be able to share the waterways, but common sense also needs to prevail.

Click to expand...

SBMech said:

You indicated in your inital discussion that this came into play from <one> cited incident and now it's dozens?

Googling most dangerous waterways in America is a bunch of blogs with no actual statistics and if they are, it's due to white water rapids.

You gotta do better than this man, I am hearing alot of predudice here about "power boaters". :thumbsdown

Click to expand...

Bradsrvrtoy. said:

"Saddle up or Paddle up"

RD...your missing the bandwagon here...I think another website is in order..."Paddledavesplace" After all it is a huge growing sport! I cant wait for the days of Sitting at topock and checking out all the tricked out kayaks in the marina! Maybe one day the parker strip will be paddle only and we can watch kayak races past foxs! Then just maybe Ill be able to sleep in without waking up to the 6am "big block alarm clock!"

Click to expand...

SRice said:

The US Coast Guard compiles annual stats based on reporting by other state, local and federal agencies. Here is one story from 2006 in the Havasu News Herald- I read a story in News Herald recently but it did not include our relative ranking for 2015. I also spent four years as a Grand Canyon ranger and worked a number of the fatalities on that stretch of river, but Lakes Havasu, Mead, Powell, and Mohave Lake all make the list of deadliest waterways on their own merits.

http://www.havasunews.com/news/lake...cle_5716608e-34ea-5c21-84fe-69543c1244e5.html

The "dozens" of incidents I mentioned were described in live public comments at the Avi Casino by the owner of one of the local canoe rentals. We had not previously received those complaints and tracking them down and documenting them is now on my to-do list. I own a motorized boat and use it almost exclusively, but it is small enough that many of you would laugh to see me in it. Nonetheless, I have had the personal experience of nearly being overturned by a bigger faster boat and consequently do not boat with my family from May through October. I had no identifying information on the boat that nearly flipped and never documented it formally- I would guess many paddlers and small boat owners have had similar experiences. I even read a thread on RDP earlier today about a wake boat which damaged another motor boat with its wake (not sure where though).

I know everybody has an anecdote, but in this case the Coast Guard and Arizona Dept of Game and Fish seem to agree with my personal and professional experience- Havasu is a dangerous place to boat. Why? I have a few theories. The fact that Arizona is one of the last holdouts on mandatory boater education, the number of boats rented to folks with zero experience, the "play like you mean it" emphasis locally are probably all factors and I'm sure there are many more.

Click to expand...

twocents said:

This is a comment about Steve Rice?s post #96 referring to Desert River Kayaks (sometimes referred to as Desert River Outfitters out of Bullhead). On numerous occasions I have observed Helen and her staff taking Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and other youth groups (ages 10 to 16 years I?m estimating) for kayaking tours through Havasu Refuge. The groups vary in number but usually 12 to 15 kayakers at a time, and most if not all appear to be novices at the sport. Although Helen and her staff are very experienced kayakers, to me, the exercise appears to be like herding cats on steroids. Kids are kids, they listen to instructions for a while (stay in a group, stay close to shore, don?t race, don?t lag behind, don?t leave the group, etc., etc.) but eventually the group mentality dissipates and some are way out in front, others are way behind, others are off in a cove exploring, and worst of all, some wind up in the middle or on the wrong side of the main channel mixed with heavy boat traffic. Plain and simple, this is a cattle-drive on water and although the kayak wranglers are experts, they can?t be everywhere at once. To attempt this activity on busy spring and summer weekends (or holidays) seems irresponsible to me. I might want to take a bicycle ride over Ortega Highway at 5pm during rush hour with the family, but it?s not that smart an idea. Last time I checked, there are seven days in a week and five of them are not weekends when power boat traffic is relatively light and safe for non-motorized boating recreation in the Refuge. I know, this is the age when everybody seems to want what they want, when they want it, all of the time. Sorry, it just doesn?t work like that. Motorized and non-motorized boaters should have equal access and be able to share the waterways, but common sense also needs to prevail.

Click to expand...

SRice said:

The US Coast Guard compiles annual stats based on reporting by other state, local and federal agencies. Here is one story from 2006 in the Havasu News Herald- I read a story in News Herald recently but it did not include our relative ranking for 2015. I also spent four years as a Grand Canyon ranger and worked a number of the fatalities on that stretch of river, but Lakes Havasu, Mead, Powell, and Mohave Lake all make the list of deadliest waterways on their own merits.

http://www.havasunews.com/news/lake...cle_5716608e-34ea-5c21-84fe-69543c1244e5.html

The "dozens" of incidents I mentioned were described in live public comments at the Avi Casino by the owner of one of the local canoe rentals. We had not previously received those complaints and tracking them down and documenting them is now on my to-do list. I own a motorized boat and use it almost exclusively, but it is small enough that many of you would laugh to see me in it. Nonetheless, I have had the personal experience of nearly being overturned by a bigger faster boat and consequently do not boat with my family from May through October. I had no identifying information on the boat that nearly flipped and never documented it formally- I would guess many paddlers and small boat owners have had similar experiences. I even read a thread on RDP earlier today about a wake boat which damaged another motor boat with its wake (not sure where though).

I know everybody has an anecdote, but in this case the Coast Guard and Arizona Dept of Game and Fish seem to agree with my personal and professional experience- Havasu is a dangerous place to boat. Why? I have a few theories. The fact that Arizona is one of the last holdouts on mandatory boater education, the number of boats rented to folks with zero experience, the "play like you mean it" emphasis locally are probably all factors and I'm sure there are many more.

Click to expand...

Singleton said:

Starting to question your boating experience. The faster the boat the smaller the wake, so your comment above about almost being flipped by a bigger faster boat seems strange.
If you want to talk safety, get the casino boat off the water. The wake that thing puts out is huge and have you ever seen it go through the channel? The casino boat is one of the biggest safety issues In the channel on weekends!
Everything else should be left alone and be allowed to be used by all. That is what my e-mail during the comment period included and I stated if you have to add no wake zones they should be less then 200 yards from shore and only be in place between October and March, since no one kayaks when it is 100 degrees outside. I also question the safety concern since reported incidents are very low and laws and regulations already address those issues.

Click to expand...

SBMech said:

You indicated in your inital discussion that this came into play from <one> cited incident and now it's dozens?

Googling most dangerous waterways in America is a bunch of blogs with no actual statistics and if they are, it's due to white water rapids.

You gotta do better than this man, I am hearing alot of predudice here about "power boaters". :thumbsdown

Click to expand...

Flying_Lavey said:

That was me and my boat that got the damage. That had nothing to do with a large boat going fast. That was a medium sized boat (approximately 21' wake board boat) going extremely slow.

Fast boats produce very little wake. Even 40' long fast boats. Sounds like the experience you are referring to could be addressed by enforcing the existing laws on the books of boaters being responsible for their wakes.

This is the typical government ideology. Add laws and regulations instead of enforcing existing ones that can easily address the root cause.

Click to expand...

Lumpy said:

SRice, Unless you confirm with RD that you are TRULY LEGIT Im not going to believe a word you say on this forum.

Click to expand...

SRice said:

Perhaps, but did you get the vessel number and everything necessary to file a complaint against that wakeboat (I did not read the thread and have no idea)? Sometimes it ain't so easy to make those cases and it's even harder to make a sufficient percentage of the cases to actually achieve the desired deterrent. Sometimes I think laws proliferate to make enforcement easier (and therefore more effective). This is an odd example but the first that springs to mind is the law against "structuring" used to recently convict former House Speaker Dennis Hastert. That law was created not because there is anything inherently sinister about withdrawing $9999 from your bank account every time, but rather because banks have to report withdrawals above $10,000 (don't quote me on the actual numbers) and crooks were learning to "structure" their withdrawals to avoid detection. Solution- new law prohibiting the practice of structuring.

There is also a lot to be said for being proactive in responding to emerging threats. Imagine a new school goes up along a busy road. The city is probably going to create a 35mph or slower zone immediately (rather than just count of responsible drivers slowing on their own) and if somebody almost hits a kid crossing on his way home I bet you see a traffic light, crosswalks, and speed bumps in short order. A smart community doesn't demand that a kid actually be killed before introducing added layers of protection for those kids.

Paddling is becoming increasingly popular in this community. The Castle Rock to Mesquite area (which includes "Speed Alley") is a designated canoe trail. Paddlers exiting the backwater must cross the deep channel even to reach the shallows and must cross again to get to the shoreline along the lake. It is reasonably foreseeable that eventually there was going to be swampings if not actual collisions in those areas. The FWS acted proactively to prevent a tragedy rather than waiting for an outcome which I personally consider inevitable, and I thought it was the right thing to do.

Click to expand...

Mike Summers said:

If the agenda was truly about Safety they wouldn't have pushed the new proposed no wake boundary line all the way out to the Cali/AZ State line in this particular area of Mesquite Bay. JMO.

Click to expand...

SRice said:

I personally think this is a valid argument for a reasonable modification to the proposal. I suggested earlier in this thread that somebody submit that very suggestion. River Dave questioned why boaters should offer a compromise, so rather than hope one of you would submit the comment I personally submitted it. I wrote, as I am doing here, not as an agency employee but a citizen with an opinion and stated that I thought the agency could achieve it's safety and wildlife objectives with a narrower no-wake zone which excludes the entire center channel (it already does exclude the 80% or so which is on the California side of the line).

My supervisor had seen my comment before I finished my shift and commented that it was well reasoned. I don't know that I addressed every agency concern in my comment and I don't have any idea how it will influence the final proposal, but I do believe the draft CD can be improved and think FWS believes there is room for improvement too. I hope they received suggestions for improvements from all of you, rather than just demands for "repeal".

Before you get too excited about my conversion, I'll also say that my personal opinion (not shared by FWS!) is that there should be a reasonable speed limit (not no wake, but maybe 40mph) going up the river- so you probably aren't going fully seduce me to the Dark Side.

Click to expand...

hallett21 said:

When you say increasingly popular can you estimate the number of annual kayakers and canoers (sp?)?

Are you yourself an active kayaker on the river between topock and windsor?

Click to expand...

SRice said:

I personally think this is a valid argument for a reasonable modification to the proposal. I suggested earlier in this thread that somebody submit that very suggestion. River Dave questioned why boaters should offer a compromise, so rather than hope one of you would submit the comment I personally submitted it. I wrote, as I am doing here, not as an agency employee but a citizen with an opinion and stated that I thought the agency could achieve it's safety and wildlife objectives with a narrower no-wake zone which excludes the entire center channel (it already does exclude the 80% or so which is on the California side of the line).

My supervisor had seen my comment before I finished my shift and commented that it was well reasoned. I don't know that I addressed every agency concern in my comment and I don't have any idea how it will influence the final proposal, but I do believe the draft CD can be improved and think FWS believes there is room for improvement too. I hope they received suggestions for improvements from all of you, rather than just demands for "repeal".

Before you get too excited about my conversion, I'll also say that my personal opinion (not shared by FWS!) is that there should be a reasonable speed limit (not no wake, but maybe 40mph) going up the river- so you probably aren't going fully seduce me to the Dark Side.

Click to expand...

USMC2010 said:

and you base this from what data?

Click to expand...

SRice said:

My opinion and anecdotal observation (such as watching a big DCB over Memorial weekend blast out of the mouth of the river doing 2-3 times the speed of everyone else and go right across and through a group of five boats entering the river- DCB was required by law to give way but could not due to speed). Highways have speed limits and I think that saves lives; seems reasonable to me that 150 mph may be too fast on a crowded river too. Everybody has two things and an opinion is one of them.

Click to expand...

SRice said:

I cannot, but visit Mesquite Central and Castle Rock any weekend and count the cars with kayak carriers. I'd guess 20ish paddlers each Sat/Sun in the summer and more in the fall/winter/spring. Not huge compared to motorboat numbers but increasing. Arizona does not register paddlecraft (maybe they should) so hard to give good stats.

I have two kayaks but I also have a 5yo and cannot paddle with him. Instead we use our 15 foot Gheenoe with its 10hp motor (which I do register). The Gheenoe is a staple in the Everglades where I used to work but a rarity out here. It looks like a canoe on steroids but is designed to be used as a motorboat. I have kayaked once in four year here in the Castle Rock area.

Click to expand...

Lumpy said:

Again, For the fourth time......legitimate credentials please, so that we may continue with a constructive dialog.

Click to expand...

hallett21 said:

http://www.havasunews.com/news/hava...cle_e9de86ce-c437-11e4-befa-1f2fb62ca263.html


there is a Steve Rice police officer according to the comments to this article for what its worth

Click to expand...

hallett21 said:

So lets say that 40 kayakers show on a Saturday and Sunday. You probably have that traffic from "power-boaters" every hour both on Saturday and Sunday.

Is this estimate 52 weekends a year? I can't imagine wanting to row a canoe this up coming weekend with temp approaching 120. However I bet you that the power boaters will be out in full force as they are every summer weekend.

What is the typical kayaker doing after they launch at Castle Rock? Are they immediately heading towards windsor? As I look at google earth I am having a hard time seeing a path where the kayakers cannot avoid 99% of boaters above 5mph by hugging the AZ side. Once they travel south of the mouth of the river they are out of the majority of traffic anyways. This is all assuming they aren't trying to paddle right down the center of the basin.

Click to expand...

SRice said:

Perhaps, but did you get the vessel number and everything necessary to file a complaint against that wakeboat (I did not read the thread and have no idea)? Sometimes it ain't so easy to make those cases and it's even harder to make a sufficient percentage of the cases to actually achieve the desired deterrent. Sometimes I think laws proliferate to make enforcement easier (and therefore more effective). This is an odd example but the first that springs to mind is the law against "structuring" used to recently convict former House Speaker Dennis Hastert. That law was created not because there is anything inherently sinister about withdrawing $9999 from your bank account every time, but rather because banks have to report withdrawals above $10,000 (don't quote me on the actual numbers) and crooks were learning to "structure" their withdrawals to avoid detection. Solution- new law prohibiting the practice of structuring.

There is also a lot to be said for being proactive in responding to emerging threats. Imagine a new school goes up along a busy road. The city is probably going to create a 35mph or slower zone immediately (rather than just count of responsible drivers slowing on their own) and if somebody almost hits a kid crossing on his way home I bet you see a traffic light, crosswalks, and speed bumps in short order. A smart community doesn't demand that a kid actually be killed before introducing added layers of protection for those kids.

Paddling is becoming increasingly popular in this community. The Castle Rock to Mesquite area (which includes "Speed Alley") is a designated canoe trail. Paddlers exiting the backwater must cross the deep channel even to reach the shallows and must cross again to get to the shoreline along the lake. It is reasonably foreseeable that eventually there was going to be swampings if not actual collisions in those areas. The FWS acted proactively to prevent a tragedy rather than waiting for an outcome which I personally consider inevitable, and I thought it was the right thing to do.

Click to expand...

USMC2010 said:

That is the name on the bottom of the violations people have been receiving by mail from the cameras.

Click to expand...

SRice said:

Are you familiar with the Speed Alley area where this began? Deep water runs along the Arizona shore and paddlers were unable to cross back and forth to the shallows along the island and then back to Arizona shoreline outside Speed Alley. Paddlers generally go Castle Rock to Mesquite Bay or just paddle around in the three Mesquite Bays. Fall/winter/spring far more paddle Topock to Castle Rock.

Click to expand...

SRice said:

View attachment 491339

Okay, hope that attached- but now you have to prove you are not a 7yo girl impersonating Lumpy.

Click to expand...

SRice said:

Minor correction- all but two of my recent letters have contained warnings rather than letters. Other officers have been sending letters regarding boats in the Sandbar during the holiday closure- I assume many of those are citations but not with my name.

Click to expand...

Flying_Lavey said:

The problem here is though that the examples you used aren't anything like this. The structuring example you used almost insinuates that all speed boat operators are breaking some sort of law but to make it easier to catch them, we're gonna create a new law to do so. I'm sure that not your intent just showing how that was a bad example.

The others aren't creating new laws, they are APPLYING others already on the books, just are now being applied to new contruction. The refuge isn't a new area with new of changing uses. Yes. The AMOUNT of human powered vessels has increased but I can just about guarantee you so has the number of power boaters has as well.

What your suggesting is that instead of enforcing the existing laws with the same increased patrol the new wake zone would bring (new restrictions are enacted, they have to be enforced and I'm sure there are no Law enforcement agencies that won't see this as an opportunity to grab a Lil extra revenue as well), you want to essentially put in a bicycle lane through one of the busiest, most congested part of the river due to the navigational hazards of the channel.

How about just some education for BOTH human powered boaters as well as powerboaters? Cause you know there are plenty of kayaker/canoers that have the "screw them" attitude as well that will intentionally try to be a hazard or disrupt boat traffic just because.



Sorry, I find ZERO credence to your claim of preventative safety.

Click to expand...

Lumpy said:

Enjoying your humor sir but even my 13 year old would still question what Im looking at.
CRED NO. 2170 Is that correct? Perhaps a email address? Forgive me but I`m still skeptical.
I also find your attitude combative. Come on now.....I honestly want to believe you.
Perhaps a clear picture of your signature so we know you are who you say you are?
It is the internet.

Click to expand...

hallett21 said:

I am familiar with Speed Alley, wish it was able to stay open. Currently from the sand bar down to the mouth of the river on the AZ side is all 5mph. So why do kayakers need any more?

Click to expand...

twocents said:

Commenting on Steve Rice?s post #115 ? first I will personally vouch that Mr. Rice is who he says he is. Second, I totally agree that all boaters have a right to recreate, motorized and non-motorized, however, having a right isn?t necessarily absolute, nor should be exercised without discretion. Someone has the right to go kayaking even when the wind is blowing 30 to 40 mph and there?s a lightning and thunder storm closing in fast. They have the right to do that, but only a fool would exercise that right. A kayaker has the right to paddle through the Refuge on a summer holiday weekend, but to me it?s a fool hardly gamble not worth the risk when the river will still be there on another more tranquil day. But enough of that debate ? what really puzzles me is how and why the Fish and Wildlife Service has blundered so badly in handling this, something which could have been approached and done without all the drama. So far, the service has been successful in angering thousands of residents in Lake Havasu, Bullhead City and Laughlin plus additional boaters in neighboring Southern California, Las Vegas and Phoenix. It has generated a signed petition with more than 3,000 signatures and over 800 comments to the Fish and Wildlife office. It has been successful in getting U.S Senators and Congressmen embroiled in the debate. It has prompted city government officials (mayors, council members, city managers and county supervisors) to speak out against the Service. And maybe most surprising has been the condemnation of Fish and Wildlife actions by other government agencies (first a letter from the Director of Arizona Game and Fish, followed by an equally strong letter of outrage from the Bureau of Land Management District Manager, and another agency letter yet to be delivered). This is something rarely seen in government bureaucracy. I don?t expect you to defend Fish and Wildlife?s conduct to date since it was not of your doing nor your responsibility. I hope the Service carefully considers all the factors and makes a wise decision. It definitely has a lot of fences that need mending.

Click to expand...

Lumpy said:

Enjoying your humor sir but even my 13 year old would still question what Im looking at.
CRED NO. 2170 Is that correct? Perhaps a email address? Forgive me but I`m still skeptical.
I also find your attitude combative. Come on now.....I honestly want to believe you.
Perhaps a clear picture of your signature so we know you are who you say you are?
It is the internet.

Click to expand...