DOES ANYONE ELSE KNOW IT'S AGAINT THE LAW TO DRIVE YOUR BOAT IF YOU HAVE BEEN DRINKIN

[2FORCEFULL]

lol I know all about baby sitting drinks and you're right nothing worse if you're sober. Speaking of props sell me a 26p. Also do you have any more box anchors. I really need one

just go to havasu to the props shps, say your name is brian or scott.... one of them will give you a prop

 

[BHC Vic]

just go to havasu to the props shps, say your name is brian or scott.... one of them will give you a prop

[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23] I've been drunk but that's a new one

 

[2FORCEFULL]

That it is. But arguing with others on a public forum that there should be no alcohol consumed at all before or during operating a vessel just gives ammunition to those that wish to further legislate us and remove our freedoms to make those choices.

so why are you arguing about it then?


they have plenty of ammunition,... and they loaded the guns...laws are being shot down as we post and being replaced...

 

[BHC Vic]

I don't think they are looking for ammunition on rdp. I could be wrong though. I'd guess that accidents by impaired drivers is better ammo

 

[Taboma]

Since I was kinda bored this fine Monday morning, I took a few moments in an attempt to root out the great "Expanding No Wake Zone(s)" conspiracy.

I can not attest to any of this personally since I'm a contrarian when it comes hanging with the human masses. As such haven't been north on the river in many years

Once it seemed everybody started going north and doing whatever it is you're doing up there, legal or not, I've stuck with going south :thumbsup

I can't say where the No Wake Zone buoys are currently, but after studying aerial imagery I can say that the buoys at Devils Elbow were not relocated between April of 2011 and Jan of 2015.
If you check Google Earth or maps you can see where they were in Jan 2015 and compare to them to now. According to articles, that No Wake Zone was established in 2006.

It seems that the No Wake Zone at Topock was established around June 2013 and buoy locations from then are consistent with locations as of Jan 2015. (Buoys are not visible in Feb 2013 aerial)

Again checking current Google earth or maps will allow you to compare to current locations.

Damn, now I'm so curious that in a few weeks from now when I'm out there on vacation I might just have to head up and take a peek for myself, on like a Tues or Wed morning of course

South Topock buoy line 1-14-15



North Topock buoy line 1-14-15

 

[Flying_Lavey]

I am arguing AGAINST any further legislation. A thread with unanimous agreement for more legislation is worse than one where an extreme minority are arguing for it.

 

[2FORCEFULL]

I am arguing AGAINST any further legislation. A thread with unanimous agreement for more legislation is worse than one where an extreme minority are arguing for it.

where was that thread... I missed it..you no doubt missed the whole point of the thread... and maybe even the topic..

 

[scottchbrite]

I've watched this thread since it started. I'm not perfect, but I absolutely do not drink an ounce while the boat is afloat. Many reasons for that decision. I wish we didn't need law enforcement to help others in their decisions. I used to pretty much ignore it but I can't anymore, now that it has personally affected me. I wasn't going to make a big deal about what happened but I might as well now.
Last weekend, Labor Day weekend Saturday, after a year of being without the boat because I was building a new motor (torched a head and pretty much scrapped the old motor), we were hit while floating. We were up by the dam in Big River and planned to float down. I literally had about 20-30 minutes of run time of the new motor. The individual that hit us had been drinking. Was he "drunk"? Probably not by most people's standards, but I would of been curious what he would of blown. He hit us hard enough it put a 2-3" hole in the right rear of my Daytona, at the water line. Cracked the inside pretty good. Luckily, I know the guy, and he'll take care of it. We had several trips still planned, but now the boat is off to Martinez for a complete redo. It's just amazing that we were hit without anyone around us, and I still don't know why he was so close. I didn't even see him coming because I was getting swim noodles out from under the bow.
The other kicker- SB Sheriff was arresting a friend of this person who refused to submit to a FST. I know they were arrested. I also know they were pulled over for CF numbers not being easily visible.
It's hard to justify an accident when ones decision making capabilities, whether legally drunk or not, are impaired.
My 2 cents.

 

[2FORCEFULL]

Again Steve, that's not how the law works. It comes back to a free society where things that are not specifically outlawed are legal to do. Since there is no law on the books stating it is illegal to consume alcohol while driving, you can legally do so. It obviously opens you up to being stopped and grilled but as long as you are not impaired, there was no written law broken.

you totally missed the boat on this thread...but being you are living and boating in California... I now completely understand calif. laws...lol

California prison workers will no longer be allowed to have sex with inmates

Full text of the law.

Film producers must have permission from a pediatrician before filming a child under the age of one month

Full text of the law.

It?s unlawful to let a dog pursue a bear or bobcat at any time.

About this law.
Full text of the law.

In San Jose and Sunnyvale it is illegal for grocery stores to provide plastic bags.

Full text of the law.

You may only throw a frisbee at the beach in Los Angeles County, CA with the lifeguard?s permission.

Full text of the law.

Sunshine is guaranteed to the masses.

It is a misdemeanor to shoot at any kind of game from a moving vehicle, unless the target is a whale.

Women may not drive in a house coat.

No vehicle without a driver may exceed 60 miles per hour.

Animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship.

Bathhouses are against the law.

About this law.
Full text of the law.

City Laws in California

Alhambra

You cannot leave your car on the street overnight without the proper permit.

Arcadia

Peacocks have the right of way to cross any street, including driveways.

Baldwin Park

Nobody is allowed to ride a bicycle in a swimming pool.

Belvedere

City Council order reads: ?No dog shall be in a public place without its master on a leash.

About this law.

Blythe

You are not permitted to wear cowboy boots unless you already own at least two cows.

Burlingame

It is illegal to spit, except on baseball diamonds.

Carmel

A man can?t go outside while wearing a jacket and pants that do not match.

Ice cream may not be eaten while standing on the sidewalk. (Repealed when Clint Eastwood was mayor)

Women may not wear high heels while in the city limits.


More Dumb Laws in California ?

 

[2FORCEFULL]

with the migrations of Californians to az...laws were made to protect them..

Hunting camels is prohibited.

About this law.

Any misdemeanor committed while wearing a red mask is considered a felony.

There is a possible 25 years in prison for cutting down a cactus.

About this law.

Donkeys cannot sleep in bathtubs.

A class 2 misdemeanor occurs if one places a mark upon a flag which is ?likely to provoke physical retaliation?.

Full text of the law.

It is illegal to manufacture imitation cocaine.

Full text of the law.

When being attacked by a criminal or burglar, you may only protect yourself with the same weapon that the other person posseses.

It is unlawful to refuse a person a glass of water.

About this law.

You may not have more than two dildos in a house.

City Laws in Arizona

Globe

Cards may not be played in the street with a Native American.

Hayden

If you bother the cottontails or bullfrogs, you will be fined.

Maricopa County

No more than six girls may live in any house.

About this law.

Mesa

It is illegal to smoke cigarettes within 15 feet of a public place unless you have a Class 12 liqueur license.

Mohave County

A decree declares that anyone caught stealing soap must wash himself with it until it is all used up.

Nogales

An ordinance prohibits the wearing of suspenders.

Prescott

No one is permitted to ride their horse up the stairs of the county court house.

Tempe

One must be 18 years old to buy spray paint.

Full text of the law.

Tombstone

It is illegal for men and women over the age of 18 to have less than one missing tooth visible when smiling.

Tucson

Women may not wear pants.

 

[RiverDave]

Since I was kinda bored this fine Monday morning, I took a few moments in an attempt to root out the great "Expanding No Wake Zone(s)" conspiracy.

I can not attest to any of this personally since I'm a contrarian when it comes hanging with the human masses. As such haven't been north on the river in many years

Once it seemed everybody started going north and doing whatever it is you're doing up there, legal or not, I've stuck with going south :thumbsup

I can't say where the No Wake Zone buoys are currently, but after studying aerial imagery I can say that the buoys at Devils Elbow were not relocated between April of 2011 and Jan of 2015.
If you check Google Earth or maps you can see where they were in Jan 2015 and compare to them to now. According to articles, that No Wake Zone was established in 2006.

It seems that the No Wake Zone at Topock was established around June 2013 and buoy locations from then are consistent with locations as of Jan 2015. (Buoys are not visible in Feb 2013 aerial)

Again checking current Google earth or maps will allow you to compare to current locations.

Damn, now I'm so curious that in a few weeks from now when I'm out there on vacation I might just have to head up and take a peek for myself, on like a Tues or Wed morning of course

South Topock buoy line 1-14-15

View attachment 510988

North Topock buoy line 1-14-15

View attachment 510990

Taboma please pull up the google earth image further south where that big house is on the water.. The bouies are further south than that house now! Probably a 1/4 - 1/2 mile south of where you showed them in your image.


As well pull up the Devils Elbow images please.. That NWZ seems to have grown considerably as well too!

RD

 

[2FORCEFULL]

Nevada how ever, used to not have many laws....

but is try'n to get along with boarder states..

It is illegal to drive a camel on the highway.

It?s still ?legal? to hang someone for shooting your dog on your property.

City Laws in Nevada

Clark County

An ordinance makes bringing a concealable fire arm into the county illegal unless it is registered with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.

Elko

Everyone walking the streets is required to wear a mask.

Nyala

A man is forbidden from buying drinks for more than three people other than himself at any one period during the day.

Reno

It is illegal to lie down on the sidewalk.

Full text of the law.

Benches may not be placed in the middle of any street.

Full text of the law.

Sex toys are outlawed.

Full text of the law

 

[RiverDave]

I can't go back and read the 20 something pages of this thread.. I read about ten of them and didn't understand any of it.




I talked to Steve on the phone last night.

THE POINT HE IS TRYING TO MAKE (without going round in circles a 100 times) is he believes the laws were changed. He believes the law with regard to drinking and boats was originally (paraphrasing of course) is "You can consume alcohol in the boat, so long as you weren't DUI" more or less.. He believes the the wording was changed at some point in the not so distant past where they removed the word alcohol, and the word consume and now it's "Impaired to the slightest degree."

The thing that has him on tilt is he believes "they" are working towards zero tolerance of alcohol, and he believes "they" are working towards no open containers in boats.. His point is we are losing freedoms at an alarming rate, and even though he doesn't partake in the booze on the boat, what he believes isn't necessarily what others believe. The point is it is what he believes and SHOULD NOT be law just because it is his belief.

He believes there should be freedom of choice, and once it is law there is no choice to be made.

The second part of the point is "Who the fuck is THEY?" and how do we find them and make them accountable?


Why we needed 21 pages of clumsy / combative text to arrive at those points I don't know.. But that is the point he is trying to make.

RD

 

[t&y]

Taboma please pull up the google earth image further south where that big house is on the water.. The bouies are further south than that house now! Probably a 1/4 - 1/2 mile south of where you showed them in your image.


As well pull up the Devils Elbow images please.. That NWZ seems to have grown considerably as well too!

RD

Well, for at least the last 5 years the area shown in the pictures he's posted is the same area they have been. the pipe line he his showing is the one south of the large white house, right at the turn. That's the same spot I've seen them ever since I've been going there.

 

[Old Texan]

https://americanboating.org/boating_fatality.asp

 

[Flying_Lavey]

where was that thread... I missed it..you no doubt missed the whole point of the thread... and maybe even the topic..

you totally missed the boat on this thread...but being you are living and boating in California... I now completely understand calif. laws...lol

California prison workers will no longer be allowed to have sex with inmates

Full text of the law.

Film producers must have permission from a pediatrician before filming a child under the age of one month

Full text of the law.

It?s unlawful to let a dog pursue a bear or bobcat at any time.

About this law.
Full text of the law.

In San Jose and Sunnyvale it is illegal for grocery stores to provide plastic bags.

Full text of the law.

You may only throw a frisbee at the beach in Los Angeles County, CA with the lifeguard?s permission.

Full text of the law.

Sunshine is guaranteed to the masses.

It is a misdemeanor to shoot at any kind of game from a moving vehicle, unless the target is a whale.

Women may not drive in a house coat.

No vehicle without a driver may exceed 60 miles per hour.

Animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship.

Bathhouses are against the law.

About this law.
Full text of the law.

City Laws in California

Alhambra

You cannot leave your car on the street overnight without the proper permit.

Arcadia

Peacocks have the right of way to cross any street, including driveways.

Baldwin Park

Nobody is allowed to ride a bicycle in a swimming pool.

Belvedere

City Council order reads: ?No dog shall be in a public place without its master on a leash.

About this law.

Blythe

You are not permitted to wear cowboy boots unless you already own at least two cows.

Burlingame

It is illegal to spit, except on baseball diamonds.

Carmel

A man can?t go outside while wearing a jacket and pants that do not match.

Ice cream may not be eaten while standing on the sidewalk. (Repealed when Clint Eastwood was mayor)

Women may not wear high heels while in the city limits.


More Dumb Laws in California ?

You're doing it again. Lol! The thread has gone in a few different directions and I have been referring to, and supported by SRice, on one direction the thread has gone. I stated a view that many here share about being vehemently against any additional legislation as it has been brought up a couple few times by various members. I don't see how you are getting the conclusions that you have stated here.


Edit: I just read RD's translation and now I get what your intention was. Pretty sure I wasn't the only one to miss it but I got it now. Seems were on the same page then. Just one is in English and one is written in 2Forcefull. Lol!

 

[mjc]

I can't go back and read the 20 something pages of this thread.. I read about ten of them and didn't understand any of it.




I talked to Steve on the phone last night.

THE POINT HE IS TRYING TO MAKE (without going round in circles a 100 times) is he believes the laws were changed. He believes the law with regard to drinking and boats was originally (paraphrasing of course) is "You can consume alcohol in the boat, so long as you weren't DUI" more or less.. He believes the the wording was changed at some point in the not so distant past where they removed the word alcohol, and the word consume and now it's "Impaired to the slightest degree."

The thing that has him on tilt is he believes "they" are working towards zero tolerance of alcohol, and he believes "they" are working towards no open containers in boats.. His point is we are losing freedoms at an alarming rate, and even though he doesn't partake in the booze on the boat, what he believes isn't necessarily what others believe. The point is it is what he believes and SHOULD NOT be law just because it is his belief.

He believes there should be freedom of choice, and once it is law there is no choice to be made.

The second part of the point is "Who the fuck is THEY?" and how do we find them and make them accountable?


Why we needed 21 pages of clumsy / combative text to arrive at those points I don't know.. But that is the point he is trying to make.

RD

Thanks for this update. I didn't have clue what everyo e was talking about.

 

[RiverDave]

Well, for at least the last 5 years the area shown in the pictures he's posted is the same area they have been. the pipe line he his showing is the one south of the large white house, right at the turn. That's the same spot I've seen them ever since I've been going there.

Well I can tell you previous to this thread and talking to Steve we went up to Topock and I made a comment to my wife "When did they move all the bouies?" It seems like the NWZ's both at Devils elbow (north side bouies had been moved further north) and the NWZ at Topock (southside bouies had been moved further south with a second set in the middle now) had gotten larger.


The Devils elbow ones I remember south of the last turn.. and now they are all the way up around on the North side about a 1/4 mile north from where they used to be.

Who knows though.. With all the coors light I have drank over the years I could be wrong on my memory.

RD

 

[t&y]

I can't go back and read the 20 something pages of this thread.. I read about ten of them and didn't understand any of it.




I talked to Steve on the phone last night.

THE POINT HE IS TRYING TO MAKE (without going round in circles a 100 times) is he believes the laws were changed. He believes the law with regard to drinking and boats was originally (paraphrasing of course) is "You can consume alcohol in the boat, so long as you weren't DUI" more or less.. He believes the the wording was changed at some point in the not so distant past where they removed the word alcohol, and the word consume and now it's "Impaired to the slightest degree."

The thing that has him on tilt is he believes "they" are working towards zero tolerance of alcohol, and he believes "they" are working towards no open containers in boats.. His point is we are losing freedoms at an alarming rate, and even though he doesn't partake in the booze on the boat, what he believes isn't necessarily what others believe. The point is it is what he believes and SHOULD NOT be law just because it is his belief.

He believes there should be freedom of choice, and once it is law there is no choice to be made.

The second part of the point is "Who the fuck is THEY?" and how do we find them and make them accountable?


Why we needed 21 pages of clumsy / combative text to arrive at those points I don't know.. But that is the point he is trying to make.

RD

Well since you put it that way... the "They" hs is searching for is called the Legislative Branch of our government. Should be easy to find and hold accountable

 

[was thatguy]

I can't go back and read the 20 something pages of this thread.. I read about ten of them and didn't understand any of it.




I talked to Steve on the phone last night.

THE POINT HE IS TRYING TO MAKE (without going round in circles a 100 times) is he believes the laws were changed. He believes the law with regard to drinking and boats was originally (paraphrasing of course) is "You can consume alcohol in the boat, so long as you weren't DUI" more or less.. He believes the the wording was changed at some point in the not so distant past where they removed the word alcohol, and the word consume and now it's "Impaired to the slightest degree."

The thing that has him on tilt is he believes "they" are working towards zero tolerance of alcohol, and he believes "they" are working towards no open containers in boats.. His point is we are losing freedoms at an alarming rate, and even though he doesn't partake in the booze on the boat, what he believes isn't necessarily what others believe. The point is it is what he believes and SHOULD NOT be law just because it is his belief.

He believes there should be freedom of choice, and once it is law there is no choice to be made.

The second part of the point is "Who the fuck is THEY?" and how do we find them and make them accountable?


Why we needed 21 pages of clumsy / combative text to arrive at those points I don't know.. But that is the point he is trying to make.

RD

Sorry RD, but we've moved on to satellite imagery concerning the bouy placement conspiracy.

 

[2FORCEFULL]

https://americanboating.org/boating_fatality.asp

thanks for the post...


Boating Fatality Facts

Safe boating is the aim of all boaters and comes from education/training and experience. This excerpt from a recent Boating Statistics report, provided by the United States Coast Guard, is presented in the interest of safety by helping boaters learn from the experience of others. To read the full report, please visit www.uscgboating.org

FATALITY RATE
Historically, one indicator of safety in recreational boating is the fatality rate, e.g., the number of reported fatalities as compared to the number of registered recreational boats. The registered boat population is based on the annual Report of Certificates of Number Issued to Boats, each State and jurisdiction forwards to the Coast Guard. The report also provides statistics on registered boats by length, hull material, and type of propulsion. Please note there are limitations to this methodology. One is that fatality rate comparisons between States are invalid because of differences in the scope of each State's boat registration system. Another limitation is that fatalities occur on boats which are not registered, and therefore not included in the boat registration statistics. Users should be aware of these limitations when working with the fatality rate. A more reliable estimate of the fatality rate for each State or jurisdiction can be found by comparing fatalities occurring only on specific categories of registered boats.


2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 2015, the Coast Guard counted 4,158
accidents that involved 626 deaths, 2,613 injuries and approximately $42 million dollars of damage to property as a result of
recreational boating accidents.
The fatality rate was 5.3 deaths per 100,000 registered recreational vessels.
This rate represents a 1.9% increase from last year?s fatality rate of 5.2
deaths per 100,000 registered recreational vessels.
Compared to 2014, the number of accidents increased 2.3%, the number of
deaths increased 2.6%, and the number of injuries decreased 2.4%.
Where cause of death was known, 76% of fatal boating accident victims drowned. Of
those drowning victims with reported life jacket usage, 85% were not wearing a life
jacket.
Where instruction was known, 71% of deaths occurred on boats where the operator
had not received boating safety instruction. Only 15% percent of deaths occurred on
vessels where the operator had received a nationally-approved boating safety
education certificate.
Eight out of every ten boaters who drowned were using vessels less than 21 feet in
length.
Operator inattention, operator inexperience, improper lookout, machinery failure, and
excessive speed rank as the top five primary contributing factors in accidents.
Alcohol use is the leading known contributing factor in fatal boating accidents; where
the primary cause was known, it was listed as the leading factor in 17% of deaths.
Twenty-two children under age thirteen lost their lives while boating in 2015. Twelve
children (55%) died from drowning. Two children (17%) of those who drowned were
wearing a life jacket; half of the remaining ten children who were not wearing a life
jacket were not required to do so under State law.
Where data was known, the most common types of vessels involved in reported
accidents were open motorboats (45%), personal watercraft (19%), and cabin
motorboats (17%).
Where data was known, the vessel types with the highest percentage of deaths were
open motorboats (46%), kayaks (12%), and canoes (11%).
The 11,867,049 recreational vessels registered by the states in 2015 represent a
0.5% increase from last year when 11,804,002 recreational vessels were registered.


For charts containing the following statistics, click on the individual links below.
Primary Contributing Factor of Accidents (Figure 3 on page 21)
Primary Contributing Factor of Deaths (Figure 4 on page 22)
Primary Contributing Factor of Injuries (Figure 5 on page 23)
Fatal Victims by Life Jacket Wear, Cause of Death & Vessel Type (Table 35 on page 65)
Number of Deaths by Vessel Type (Table 24 on page 47)

 

[Ziggy]

you are correct..and I try not to...one time I had an ice tea in a foam cup fly out of the drink holder.. tea every where... new rule.... finish all drinks before we take off. and put every thing away...

not many like my boating rules... if you notice.... most all the time..... it's just sue and I

This is what I use on my coke cans.[emoji106]
Snap Capp Re-closable Can Lid, Assorted Colors, Set of 4 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002L16F78/ref=cm_sw_r_other_apa_wwV1xb7S3WAT1
Works perfect unless you're in a v-bottom on a rough day, ask MalibuKen how I know that. [emoji1] [emoji23]

 

[cole_skier]

Well I can tell you previous to this thread and talking to Steve we went up to Topock and I made a comment to my wife "When did they move all the bouies?" It seems like the NWZ's both at Devils elbow (north side bouies had been moved further north) and the NWZ at Topock (southside bouies had been moved further south with a second set in the middle now) had gotten larger.


The Devils elbow ones I remember south of the last turn.. and now they are all the way up around on the North side about a 1/4 mile north from where they used to be.

Who knows though.. With all the coors light I have drank over the years I could be wrong on my memory.

RD

My son and I were saying the same thing over Labor Day Weekend.

 

[Taboma]

Taboma please pull up the google earth image further south where that big house is on the water.. The bouies are further south than that house now! Probably a 1/4 - 1/2 mile south of where you showed them in your image.


As well pull up the Devils Elbow images please.. That NWZ seems to have grown considerably as well too!

RD

Here ya go Dave, this should help, at least where they WERE on 1-14-15, but with the GPS coordinates you can always compare to current.

The yellow Pins are on the buoy lines, you can't see them at this level of zoom, the GPS coordinates are the Pin / buoy locations.

You don't need Google Earth, you can see them on Google maps, but maps show the image date, but same as GE.


Topock



Devil's Elbow

 

[2FORCEFULL]

Here ya go Dave, this should help, at least where they WERE on 1-14-15, but with the GPS coordinates you can always compare to current.

The yellow Pins are on the buoy lines, you can't see them at this level of zoom, the GPS coordinates are the Pin / buoy locations.

You don't need Google Earth, you can see them on Google maps, but maps show the image date, but same as GE.


Topock

View attachment 511052

Devil's Elbow

View attachment 511053

do you and have you boated through there for the last 10 years?

 

[t&y]

do you and have you boated through there for the last 10 years?

I have for at least the last 5. They look to be in the same spot I always remember them being.

 

[2FORCEFULL]

I have for at least the last 5. They look to be in the same spot I always remember them being.

ok, thanks for posting....it use to be that there were no wakeless buoys... only one buoy that said " no sking next 17 miles"

not saying its was a good or bad idea...but driving under the bridge was sketchey when some one blew by every one and didn't follow the boat in front... even worse when they were going the wrong dirrection

 

[Ziggy]

I have for at least the last 5. They look to be in the same spot I always remember them being.

They seem the same to me too however earlier this year I thought maybe the south ones at the Gorge were downriver a tad.

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

They seem the same to me too however earlier this year I thought maybe the south ones at the Gorge were downriver a tad.

Have any moved up river?? :rolleyes I would expect them to move down river, what with all the impaired boaters that drank a Coors light 4 hours ago striking the bouys.

No way could the current make a unsecured buoy move slightly over time.

 

[2FORCEFULL]

when they put up the buoys... they were under the pipeline tressel.... and just north of the train tressel..in fact, you could come out of topoc and the north side wasn't wakeless..the buoys were right in front of opening..

 

[2FORCEFULL]

They seem the same to me too however earlier this year I thought maybe the south ones at the Gorge were downriver a tad.

a tad??? they use to be right at the turn ,up to the little sand bar... and north ones were at vigina rock

 

[MSum661]

Taboma please pull up the google earth image further south where that big house is on the water.. The bouies are further south than that house now! Probably a 1/4 - 1/2 mile south of where you showed them in your image.



RD

Just a supplement Ref. Pt. to Taboma's Ref, Sat Img View.

Image Date 1.14.2015
pulled approx. 185 linear feet at approx. 300 ft. elevation
Buoys appear to be well indexed.

 

[2FORCEFULL]

Just a supplement Ref. Pt. to Taboma's Ref, Sat Img View.

Image Date 1.14.2015
pulled approx. 185 linear feet at approx. 300 ft. elevation
Buoys appear to be well indexed.

View attachment 511073

you're at the wrong tressel... the buoys use to be under the white pipe line, and north of the private beach on the east


also, according to your scale.... the south buoys were moved 1/4 mile.... and the north was moved 3 foot ball fields..

that's a lot of area when it's 140 degrees..

 

[MSum661]

^ O.k.

 

[2FORCEFULL]

^ O.k.

thanks...

 

[2FORCEFULL]

I think the scale that is used by They".... is one inch = 1 mile:rolleyes

 

[Ziggy]

a tad??? they use to be right at the turn ,up to the little sand bar... and north ones were at vigina rock

Yup, I said a tad[emoji4] . I agree, the south markers at the gorge were much closer to the turn. The north side, maybe a little less than a tad further upstream. Doesn't seem all that different to me there.
At the 40, south markers moved south a tad or two[emoji4] . North, a little smidgen north perhaps.

South bouys at the 40 makes the camera on the next structure more useful. Its proximity now catches the wakeless speed offenders traveling upstream whereas before the bouys floated south it was kinda useless for that purpose.

 

[Sleek-Jet]

I can't go back and read the 20 something pages of this thread.. I read about ten of them and didn't understand any of it.




I talked to Steve on the phone last night.

THE POINT HE IS TRYING TO MAKE (without going round in circles a 100 times) is he believes the laws were changed. He believes the law with regard to drinking and boats was originally (paraphrasing of course) is "You can consume alcohol in the boat, so long as you weren't DUI" more or less.. He believes the the wording was changed at some point in the not so distant past where they removed the word alcohol, and the word consume and now it's "Impaired to the slightest degree."

The thing that has him on tilt is he believes "they" are working towards zero tolerance of alcohol, and he believes "they" are working towards no open containers in boats.. His point is we are losing freedoms at an alarming rate, and even though he doesn't partake in the booze on the boat, what he believes isn't necessarily what others believe. The point is it is what he believes and SHOULD NOT be law just because it is his belief.

He believes there should be freedom of choice, and once it is law there is no choice to be made.

The second part of the point is "Who the fuck is THEY?" and how do we find them and make them accountable?


Why we needed 21 pages of clumsy / combative text to arrive at those points I don't know.. But that is the point he is trying to make.

RD

As far as I can tell, from the time it has gone into affect, ARS 5-395 has always stated:

A. It is unlawful for any person to operate or be in actual physical control of a motorized watercraft that is underway within this state under any of the following circumstances:

1.While under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, a vapor releasing substance containing a toxic substance or any combination of liquor, drugs or vapor releasing substances if the person is impaired to the slightest degree.

Nothing has changed essentially but the assumed impaired BAC from 0.10 to 0.08 several years ago.

https://www.maricopa.gov/pdweb/docs/1994/199405-ftd.pdf see page 4 under BUI.

As a rule, laws do not codify accepted behavior, but rather spell out what you can not do. Hence the language like "no person shall" or "it is unlawful".

So I'd wager no law anywhere in the US has ever stated in plain language "You can drink but not be drunk while operating a vehicle."

And for the record, if anyone wants to see what the laws actually say, use this link. http://www.azleg.gov/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

I can't go back and read the 20 something pages of this thread.. I read about ten of them and didn't understand any of it.




I talked to Steve on the phone last night.

THE POINT HE IS TRYING TO MAKE (without going round in circles a 100 times) is he believes the laws were changed. He believes the law with regard to drinking and boats was originally (paraphrasing of course) is "You can consume alcohol in the boat, so long as you weren't DUI" more or less.. He believes the the wording was changed at some point in the not so distant past where they removed the word alcohol, and the word consume and now it's "Impaired to the slightest degree."

The thing that has him on tilt is he believes "they" are working towards zero tolerance of alcohol, and he believes "they" are working towards no open containers in boats.. His point is we are losing freedoms at an alarming rate, and even though he doesn't partake in the booze on the boat, what he believes isn't necessarily what others believe. The point is it is what he believes and SHOULD NOT be law just because it is his belief.

He believes there should be freedom of choice, and once it is law there is no choice to be made.

The second part of the point is "Who the fuck is THEY?" and how do we find them and make them accountable?


Why we needed 21 pages of clumsy / combative text to arrive at those points I don't know.. But that is the point he is trying to make.

RD

I'm electing you as the official 2FF to English translator. He should call you before every post.

If the wording did change, it was probably because alcohol is not the only thing you can drink (or smoke) that can impair you, but Sleek-Jet's post above makes more sense.

 

[SRice]

So a beer in a couple holder isn't probable cause for impairment but a medical marijuana card is probable cause of purchasing an illegal substance. Crazy [emoji4]

Well if we're gonna go there, the Feds still consider marijuana to be illegal and an MJ card does not change that if you are contacted by a Federal officer. This "medicine" should not be used in public, especially if you are operating a boat.

 

[530RL]

Well if we're gonna go there, the Feds still consider marijuana to be illegal and an MJ card does not change that if you are contacted by a Federal officer. This "medicine" should not be used in public, especially if you are operating a boat.

According to a recent ninth circuit case, the possession of a medical marijuana card makes one deemed to be a user of a controlled substance.

In simple terms, forget boating, you are not allowed to buy ammunition, a firearm, or possess a firearm.

Since this has gone on for a bunch of pages, when I graduated from high school, impaired was .15. If you were caught with beer or booze, officers made you pour out your beer and put the unopened cans and bottles in their cruiser. How times have changed........

 

[SRice]

when they put up the buoys... they were under the pipeline tressel.... and just north of the train tressel..in fact, you could come out of topoc and the north side wasn't wakeless..the buoys were right in front of opening..


View attachment 511065 View attachment 511067 View attachment 511068 View attachment 511063 View attachment 511064 View attachment 511065

FWS owns and maintains the "No skiing, fires, camping next 17 miles" buoys which are basically at the railroad trestle. We also maintain Devils Elbow buoys. Havasu Marine Association maintains the Tolock no wake buoys above and below i40 shown in Taboma's sat photos as well as the CA side dredged channel at mouth of river.

 

[SRice]

According to a recent ninth circuit case, the possession of a medical marijuana card makes one deemed to be a user of a controlled substance.

In simple terms, forget boating, you are not allowed to buy ammunition, a firearm, or possess a firearm.

Since this has gone on for a bunch of pages, when I graduated from high school, impaired was .15. If you were caught with beer or booze, officers made you pour out your beer and put the unopened cans and bottles in their cruiser. How times have changed........

And what made that extra interesting was that the woman did in fact not pass her background to purchase a firearm based on that.

 

[RiverDave]

thanks... View attachment 511079 View attachment 511080 View attachment 511081 View attachment 511082 View attachment 511083 View attachment 511084

As far as I can tell, from the time it has gone into affect, ARS 5-395 has always stated:

A. It is unlawful for any person to operate or be in actual physical control of a motorized watercraft that is underway within this state under any of the following circumstances:

1.While under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, a vapor releasing substance containing a toxic substance or any combination of liquor, drugs or vapor releasing substances if the person is impaired to the slightest degree.

Nothing has changed essentially but the assumed impaired BAC from 0.10 to 0.08 several years ago.

https://www.maricopa.gov/pdweb/docs/1994/199405-ftd.pdf see page 4 under BUI.

As a rule, laws do not codify accepted behavior, but rather spell out what you can not do. Hence the language like "no person shall" or "it is unlawful".

So I'd wager no law anywhere in the US has ever stated in plain language "You can drink but not be drunk while operating a vehicle."

And for the record, if anyone wants to see what the laws actually say, use this link. http://www.azleg.gov/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp

It's not .08 anymore.. Now it's .05 (or I've heard .04) and above is "officer discretion" meaning if you fail FST (by who's ever on duty standards).. Ironically enough originally I found myself disagreeing with Steve, but the more I think about it I'm coming to realize this "To the slightest degree" stuff does seem rather new? I don't remember any of that 20 years ago? I'm thinking they did flip the script on some verbage somewhere?

FWS owns and maintains the "No skiing, fires, camping next 17 miles" buoys which are basically at the railroad trestle. We also maintain Devils Elbow buoys. Havasu Marine Association maintains the Tolock no wake buoys above and below i40 shown in Taboma's sat photos as well as the CA side dredged channel at mouth of river.

Well that's good news.. A quick call to ole Jim S. and they can put them back.

RD

 

[t&y]

If you were caught with beer or booze, officers made you pour out your beer and put the unopened cans and bottles in their cruiser. How times have changed........

Area specific... but you might be surprised and just how much they haven't changed.

 

[530RL]

And what made that extra interesting was that the woman did in fact not pass her background to purchase a firearm based on that.

Technically, being legal and all that stuff, based upon the facts outlined in the case, she passed her background based upon what she believed were truthful answers but the gun store knew she had a medical marijuana card and denied her the gun. The federal background check did not deny her the weapon. There was no "federal" list of marijuana card owners and if the gun store did not have that knowledge of her card, and denied her the weapon, she would have received the weapon based upon her answers, and the gun store would have been legally protected.

The gun store was a defendant and had to pay lots of legal bills. Only in America can one do the right thing and suffer monetary or time consequences.

And back to the topic we go for those of us who follow the law.......

 

[Sleek-Jet]

It's not .08 anymore.. Now it's .05 (or I've heard .04) and above is "officer discretion" meaning if you fail FST (by who's ever on duty standards).. Ironically enough originally I found myself disagreeing with Steve, but the more I think about it I'm coming to realize this "To the slightest degree" stuff does seem rather new? I don't remember any of that 20 years ago? I'm thinking they did flip the script on some verbage somewhere?



Well that's good news.. A quick call to ole Jim S. and they can put them back.

RD

I provided a reference to the original language of the statute, but if you want to believe the State of Arizona is going around editing historical documents because "they" are out to get you, go right ahead I guess.

The annotated statutes are available on line back to 1997 if you want to really research it and not go off of memory. All it takes is a little time.

 

[BHC Vic]

Well if we're gonna go there, the Feds still consider marijuana to be illegal and an MJ card does not change that if you are contacted by a Federal officer. This "medicine" should not be used in public, especially if you are operating a boat.

I agree. However and I would be more than happy to do this. We should let some one smoke and someone drink and see who is more impaired. It's absolutely ridiculous to say it's safer to let someone drink a beer than take a hit and drive a boat. Even worse when that translates to buying guns. Impairment is impairment I agree but in no way will I ever say weed is more dangerous or deadly than beer.

 

[BHC Vic]

I've never been so high I couldn't get the key in the ignition or so high I forgot how I got home [emoji4]

 

[BHC Vic]

I'm actually curious now. I'd like to see someone smoke then take the fst. And not the eye test [emoji12] the walking touching your nose that stuff. Weed isn't a poison, it doesn't dehydrate you, you don't wake up feeling like shit after smoking. It's always amazed me why people would rather drink and look down on weed so much. I can't think of anything other than it being illegal. My wife is 33 and never smoked. Probably because it's illegal [emoji4]