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

[RiverDave]

I asked Bob Brown to write a summary of what is going on with the No Wake Zone that is being proposed in the refuge area. Below is a basic overview, that basically states they would like to make the mouth of the river a No Wake Zone all the way across, and they are proposing to close down the area behind Topock to powerboats. One might think the area behind Topock is irrelevant and for the most part it is, but as always it's given an inch take a mile type situation. Surprisingly the proposed No Wake Zone at the mouth of the river comes from "Anglers United" out of Phoenix, whom has literally nothing to do with Lake Havasu, and why they would propose it is beyond me.

I would encourage you to write your e-mails to the e-mail address listed at the bottom.. RDP will also have a Petition at the RDP Booth at Desert Storm for people to sign stating we are against any further closures of water and no wake zones in Lake Havasu etc.


The April 12, 2016 Compatibility Determination draft by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to create new no wake zones within the boundaries of the Havasu National Wildlife Refuge (located just north of the I-40 bridge extending south through scenic Topock Gorge where the river meets Lake Havasu, approximately 17.5 miles in length) has generated controversy and deep concern among many boaters.

This controversy is essentially two-fold. First, it?s about whether there is adequate justification to enact additional no wake zones within the Refuge, placing new access and use restrictions aimed at power boaters based upon public safety and environmental concerns. Secondly, the broader big picture issue is holding Federal agencies accountable for their actions, making certain that they follow the mandated procedures and guidelines of the process as prescribed by law.

According to the Service?s April 12 Compatibility Determination document, essentially two sections of the Refuge are targeted for new no wake restrictions: the Topock Marsh area just north of the I-40 Bridge, and the southern most area of the Refuge boundary adjacent to Mesquite Bay where river and lake converge. Transforming this southern section (from the imaginary dividing line down the middle of the lake between California and Arizona to the far eastern shoreline of Arizona) into a no wake zone was in response to a request made by Anglers United to the Service in November 2015.

About a year ago (May 2015) the USFW created a new no-wake zone in a backwater area of the Refuge which had been long used by wakeboarders and water skiers seeking smooth water. Acting on the complaints of non-motorized watercraft users that boarding and skiing were harming the wildlife habitat in that area and compromising the safety of kayakers, canoers and paddleboarders, USFW installed buoys making it a restricted no-wake zone without following Federal mandates for public input and proper notification.

Now, a year later, USFW is proposing additional no wake zones within the Refuge boundaries to further restrict access and use of Refuge waters to power boaters. The newly proposed no wake zones are primarily located in areas where power boats seldom go (Topock Marsh backwaters, north of the I-40 Bridge) and a marsh-like area at the southern-most tip of the Refuge boundary where river and lake converge. The CD, however, does not suggest the establishment of any new no wake zones within the 17.5 miles of the Refuge main channel.

Unfortunately, history tells us that restricting recreational boating access and use are not something boaters should relinquish casually. Over-zealous conservation activists don?t consider recreational boating as a fundamental right when it comes to environmental protection considerations. And it appears the USFW shares that sentiment given a statement contained within its own CD ? ?Based on the analysis within this Compatibility Determination, the Refuge proposes to limit boating to activities that support the priority public uses ? hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education and interpretation.? Conspicuous by its absence is any mention or reference of general recreational boating as a priority public use.

Now is the time for boaters to express their concerns. Many of the justifications sited in the CD for adding more Refuge no wake zones are based upon faulty and misleading information and poorly supported conclusions. Please sign the RiverDavesPlace petition, send comments to USFW and attend the public meetings ? it is important.

Concerned boaters are urged to send their comments to:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Havasu National Wildlife Refuge
Attn: Draft Recreational Boating CD
317 Mesquite Avenue
Needles, CA 92363

Comments may also be emailed to:*[email protected]

Public meetings will be held at the Aquatic Center in Lake Havasu on Monday, May 2, 6pm to 8pm and at the AVI Resort and Casino on Tuesday, May 3, 1pm to 3pm and again at 6pm to 8pm.

 

[mbrown2]

Dave,

How do we sign the RDP petition?......good job for organizing...you have the biggest platforms for bringing recreational boaters together to fight these causes.

Good work!

 

[2Driver]

They have instituted so many no wake zones in Bartlett lake it is almost dangerous to boat along some stretches.

They have reduced the permitted wake areas to the point where they could cause boating collisions. Ironically the narrowed spots (due to no wake buoys on both side of the lake) were the areas for skiing and recreational boating.

 

[RiverDave]

Dave,

How do we sign the RDP petition?......good job for organizing...you have the biggest platforms for bringing recreational boaters together to fight these causes.

Good work!

That will be in person at the RDP booth at Desert Storm Street Fair.. I am also going to take one down to Campbell Cove at some point this weekend and see if they will let me leave one there.

Not a lot of time to gather signatures, but I think it will help.

RD

 

[Boat Bling]

If you can make a copy of the petition or send me the file, I'd like to have one in the Boat Bling booth. Every customer that leaves with an order will know about the proposed no wake zones.

-Zack

 

[Squirtsfar]

Dave,

Thanks for providing some great info. I have sent one email via a previous post on rdp. This reminds me of the battles that have taken place at the dunes. Is there a group or association that fights this kind of B.S. on behalf of the power boating community?

 

[River918]

So are they looking at making the entire 17.5 mile stretch a no wake zone, or just the Arizona side of the entry into Lake Havasu (to match the California side) along with the refuge area behind Topock? Heck, if the 17 mile stretch goes through as a no wake zone, I may have to re-think having the new boat built this winter. Thank goodness for re-fundable deposits!

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

I'd still like to see the proposal that states they want to make the entire mouth of the river all the way across a no wake zone. The proposal from 4/12/16 just had a no wake zone on the AZ side, which is not the side powerboats use to go up river anyway.


That said I am not in favor of relinquishing any more areas as no wake zones.

 

[Mandelon]

They are not specifically proposing making the entire stretch no wake....yet. But given history of boating regulations, it is likely a long time plan.

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

So are they looking at making the entire 17.5 mile stretch a no wake zone, or just the Arizona side of the entry into Lake Havasu (to match the California side) along with the refuge area behind Topock? Heck, if the 17 mile stretch goes through as a no wake zone, I may have to re-think having the new boat built this winter. Thank goodness for re-fundable deposits!

AZ side of entry, not the 17 mile stretch to the 40. We all enter and exit the river from the CA side. The AZ side is too shallow.

The caveat is that the proposal says they can make any part of that 17.5 mile stretch no wake going forward.

 

[RiverDave]

If you can make a copy of the petition or send me the file, I'd like to have one in the Boat Bling booth. Every customer that leaves with an order will know about the proposed no wake zones.

-Zack

Will do Zach.

Dave,

Thanks for providing some great info. I have sent one email via a previous post on rdp. This reminds me of the battles that have taken place at the dunes. Is there a group or association that fights this kind of B.S. on behalf of the power boating community?

That's a Bob Brown question.. He's the most up to date on all this stuff, but I figured I would try to do my part as well.

So are they looking at making the entire 17.5 mile stretch a no wake zone, or just the Arizona side of the entry into Lake Havasu (to match the California side) along with the refuge area behind Topock? Heck, if the 17 mile stretch goes through as a no wake zone, I may have to re-think having the new boat built this winter. Thank goodness for re-fundable deposits!

That's why I had Bob Brown write the summary.. There's a lot of misinformation out there. This would be the entrance to the river that they would make "No Wake" and then the marsh lands up behind Topock.

THE KICKER OR THE RUB as I understand it is once they put it on both sides, then they can add no wake zones or shut things down in the middle without Public input which would be the underlying reason as to why they are doing this. The other problem is they shut down an area near the mouth of the river commonly referred to as "The Shallows" late last year. This was done WITHOUT public comment period, or a host of other things which is technically "illegal." They did it based on 70-80 letters and e-mails that were written by TWO PEOPLE here in Lake Havasu. (Who's names are a matter of public record now)

 

[rivermobster]

They are not specifically proposing making the entire stretch no wake....yet. But given history of boating regulations, it is likely a long time plan.

Since 1992...

http://www.anglersunited.org/about_us.html

 

[rivermobster]

Who the fuck is Michael Moore?


Domain ID: D101313949-LROR
WHOIS Server:
Referral URL: http://www.omnis.com
Updated Date: 2015-08-24T02:06:08Z
Creation Date: 2003-09-05T19:55:08Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2016-09-05T19:55:08Z
Sponsoring Registrar: Omnis Network LLC
Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID: 143
Domain Status: ok https://www.icann.org/epp#ok
Registrant ID: OMNIS-709091
Registrant Name: Michael Moore
Registrant Organization:
Registrant Street: 9858 S Forest Ave
Registrant City: Tempe
Registrant State/Province: AZ
Registrant Postal Code: 85284
Registrant Country: US
Registrant Phone: +1.4807343160
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax:
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email:

Admin ID: OMNIS-709091
Admin Name: Michael Moore
Admin Organization:
Admin Street: 9858 S Forest Ave
Admin City: Tempe
Admin State/Province: AZ
Admin Postal Code: 85284
Admin Country: US
Admin Phone: +1.4807343160
Admin Phone Ext:
Admin Fax:
Admin Fax Ext:
Admin Email:

Tech ID: OMNIS-709091
Tech Name: Michael Moore
Tech Organization:
Tech Street: 9858 S Forest Ave
Tech City: Tempe
Tech State/Province: AZ
Tech Postal Code: 85284
Tech Country: US
Tech Phone: +1.4807343160
Tech Phone Ext:
Tech Fax:
Tech Fax Ext:
Tech Email:

Name Server: NS.EXTREMEZONE.COM
Name Server: NS2.EXTREMEZONE.COM
DNSSEC: unsigned
--- Last update of WHOIS database: 2016-02-27T03:44:19Z ---
- See more at: http://www.enom.com/whois/default.aspx#sthash.yUwOjki5.dpuf

 

[twocents]

To clarify a few questions raised so far, LargeOrangeFont is correct. The proposed no wake area at the southern end of the Refuge only extends from the Arizona shoreline out to the middle of the lake where the imaginary dividing line between California and Arizona exists. The problem with the provided map is that the California shoreline on the southern end (down from Catfish Bay) is not shown which makes the map very confusing. So what we are left with is an unrestricted area on the California side only, however, there is a no wake zone in the deep water channel that was dredged about three years ago which is also on that side. Also be aware that Mayor Nexsen and Congressman Gosar have both made a request to extend the public comment period from 30 days (ends May 12) to 60 days (no comment as yet from U.S. Fish and Wildlife). Third, Congressman Paul Cook from California's 8th District has joined the fight critical of how Fish and Wildlife has handled this so far (the more elected officials we can get on our side the better). And last, there is a coalition of about eight to ten boating organizations and Lake Havasu City associations currently working on this issue.....plus the power of RDP!

 

[Bobby V]

To clarify a few questions raised so far, LargeOrangeFont is correct. The proposed no wake area at the southern end of the Refuge only extends from the Arizona shoreline out to the middle of the lake where the imaginary dividing line between California and Arizona exists. The problem with the provided map is that the California shoreline on the southern end (down from Catfish Bay) is not shown which makes the map very confusing. So what we are left with is an unrestricted area on the California side only, however, there is a no wake zone in the deep water channel that was dredged about three years ago which is also on that side. Also be aware that Mayor Nexsen and Congressman Gosar have both made a request to extend the public comment period from 30 days (ends May 12) to 60 days (no comment as yet from U.S. Fish and Wildlife). Third, Congressman Paul Cook from California's 8th District has joined the fight critical of how Fish and Wildlife has handled this so far (the more elected officials we can get on our side the better). And last, there is a coalition of about eight to ten boating organizations and Lake Havasu City associations currently working on this issue.....plus the power of RDP!

I have also seen a e-mail from the property owners along the river in Needles that have flyers going around to be at the meeting at the Avi.

 

[SBMech]

Here's a quick copy paste to get people e-mailing.


To whom it may concern,

The April 12, 2016 Compatibility Determination draft by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to create new no wake zones within the boundaries of the Havasu National Wildlife Refuge (located just north of the I-40 bridge extending south through scenic Topock Gorge where the river meets Lake Havasu, approximately 17.5 miles in length) has generated controversy and deep concern among many boaters.

This controversy is essentially two-fold. First, it?s about whether there is adequate justification to enact additional no wake zones within the Refuge, placing new access and use restrictions aimed at power boaters based upon public safety and environmental concerns. Secondly, the broader big picture issue is holding Federal agencies accountable for their actions, making certain that they follow the mandated procedures and guidelines of the process as prescribed by law.

According to the Service?s April 12 Compatibility Determination document, essentially two sections of the Refuge are targeted for new no wake restrictions: the Topock Marsh area just north of the I-40 Bridge, and the southern most area of the Refuge boundary adjacent to Mesquite Bay where river and lake converge. Transforming this southern section (from the imaginary dividing line down the middle of the lake between California and Arizona to the far eastern shoreline of Arizona) into a no wake zone was in response to a request made by Anglers United to the Service in November 2015.

About a year ago (May 2015) the USFW created a new no-wake zone in a backwater area of the Refuge which had been long used by wakeboarders and water skiers seeking smooth water. Acting on the complaints of non-motorized watercraft users that boarding and skiing were harming the wildlife habitat in that area and compromising the safety of kayakers, canoers and paddleboarders, USFW installed buoys making it a restricted no-wake zone without following Federal mandates for public input and proper notification.

Now, a year later, USFW is proposing additional no wake zones within the Refuge boundaries to further restrict access and use of Refuge waters to power boaters. The newly proposed no wake zones are primarily located in areas where power boats seldom go (Topock Marsh backwaters, north of the I-40 Bridge) and a marsh-like area at the southern-most tip of the Refuge boundary where river and lake converge. The CD, however, does not suggest the establishment of any new no wake zones within the 17.5 miles of the Refuge main channel.

I am opposed to ANY new No Wake Zones prohibiting access to power boats and water sports.

Furthermore I am asking for an immediate removal of the illegal No Wake Zone that was pushed through and shut down and area near the mouth of the river commonly referred to as ?The Shallows? last year. This was done without ANY public comment period and a host of other things illegally since proper procedure was NOT followed. These complaints are all written by the same 2 people in Lake Havasu (Who?s names are public record now).

Signed
John Q Public
Boating and Water Sports Fan

Correct the couple of apostrophe ? and that should be a start

 

[rivermobster]

Here's a quick copy paste to get people e-mailing.


To whom it may concern,

The April 12, 2016 Compatibility Determination draft by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to create new no wake zones within the boundaries of the Havasu National Wildlife Refuge (located just north of the I-40 bridge extending south through scenic Topock Gorge where the river meets Lake Havasu, approximately 17.5 miles in length) has generated controversy and deep concern among many boaters.

This controversy is essentially two-fold. First, it?s about whether there is adequate justification to enact additional no wake zones within the Refuge, placing new access and use restrictions aimed at power boaters based upon public safety and environmental concerns. Secondly, the broader big picture issue is holding Federal agencies accountable for their actions, making certain that they follow the mandated procedures and guidelines of the process as prescribed by law.

According to the Service?s April 12 Compatibility Determination document, essentially two sections of the Refuge are targeted for new no wake restrictions: the Topock Marsh area just north of the I-40 Bridge, and the southern most area of the Refuge boundary adjacent to Mesquite Bay where river and lake converge. Transforming this southern section (from the imaginary dividing line down the middle of the lake between California and Arizona to the far eastern shoreline of Arizona) into a no wake zone was in response to a request made by Anglers United to the Service in November 2015.

About a year ago (May 2015) the USFW created a new no-wake zone in a backwater area of the Refuge which had been long used by wakeboarders and water skiers seeking smooth water. Acting on the complaints of non-motorized watercraft users that boarding and skiing were harming the wildlife habitat in that area and compromising the safety of kayakers, canoers and paddleboarders, USFW installed buoys making it a restricted no-wake zone without following Federal mandates for public input and proper notification.

Now, a year later, USFW is proposing additional no wake zones within the Refuge boundaries to further restrict access and use of Refuge waters to power boaters. The newly proposed no wake zones are primarily located in areas where power boats seldom go (Topock Marsh backwaters, north of the I-40 Bridge) and a marsh-like area at the southern-most tip of the Refuge boundary where river and lake converge. The CD, however, does not suggest the establishment of any new no wake zones within the 17.5 miles of the Refuge main channel.

I am opposed to ANY new No Wake Zones prohibiting access to power boats and water sports.

Furthermore I am asking for an immediate removal of the illegal No Wake Zone that was pushed through and shut down and area near the mouth of the river commonly referred to as ?The Shallows? last year. This was done without ANY public comment period and a host of other things illegally since proper procedure was NOT followed. These complaints are all written by the same 2 people in Lake Havasu (Who?s names are public record now).

Signed
John Q Public
Boating and Water Sports Fan

Correct the couple of apostrophe ? and that should be a start

Really nice!

It needs to be modified by everyone though. Once the reader sees that it's a form letter, they are going to start ignoring them.

Make the first paragraph something about you personally....

Then change the rest up a bit, so it's not exactly a copy and paste...

Someone find the names of these two alleged people (we need to have facts, or we look like fools) and add em to the end of the letter.

Nicely done. 👍 👍

 

[SBMech]

Yep, more of a "copy this and alter a few places to fit YOUR feelings"

But it saves a lot of typing for members who are hustling to make DS :thumbsup

 

[Jed-O]

That will be in person at the RDP booth at Desert Storm Street Fair.. I am also going to take one down to Campbell Cove at some point this weekend and see if they will let me leave one there.

Not a lot of time to gather signatures, but I think it will help.

RD

Dave, if you get a chance, email me a copy of the petition as well. I'll try to get some signatures from Arrowhead.
[email protected]

 

[Hondo-407]

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public...onal-boating-restrictions-in-lake-havasu-city

 

[RiverDave]

Bump for meetings tonight and tomorrow!!

 

[MohavValley]

Here's my letter, better late than never.


Feel free to use it to create your own:

Send them to:
[email protected]


To FWS,
I am writing you over my concern about the proposed no wake zones in the Havasu Wildlife Refuge area of Arizona that extends from Topock marina down to lake Havasu itself and composes California?s eastern border and the disproportional negative effect it will have on the largest constituent group the FWS represents in the immediate area.

The April 12, 2016 Compatibility Determination draft by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to create new no wake zones within the boundaries of the Havasu National Wildlife Refuge (located just north of the I-40 bridge extending south through scenic Topock Gorge where the river meets Lake Havasu, approximately 17.5 miles in length) has generated controversy and profound concern for myself and my fellow constituents comprised of local property owners, businesses owners, and out of area recreationalists that utilize the immediate area for motorized recreation.

As US citizen, a recreational boat enthusiast, and a local constituent my concerns are four-fold; My first concern is about whether there is adequate documented evidence to enact additional no wake zones within the Refuge, placing new access and use restrictions aimed at and disproportionally affecting motorized recreation (boaters and PWC users) and wither such evidence is based upon verified and documented public safety and environmental issues and concerns. Second, is ensuring the FWS and any other public agency involved in making such decisions follow the mandated procedures and guidelines of the documented processes as required by existing law. Third, is holding Federal agencies and their employees accountable for their actions that disproportionally negatively affect the public for which they are suppose to represent. Fourth, safety concerns for now crowded and difficult to navigate ?No Wake Zones? created by FWS where users now have to interact and have close contact while overcoming the river?s natural current. The FWS has essentially created what equates to a traffic jam in the middle of the moving freeway by implementing these no wake zones on open river sections.

According to the FWS?s April 12 Compatibility Determination document, essentially two sections of the Refuge are targeted for additional new no wake restrictions: the Topock Marsh area just north of the I-40 Bridge, and the southern most area of the Refuge boundary adjacent to Mesquite Bay where Colorado River and lake Havasu converge. Transforming this southern section on either side (through it is proposed to be from the centerline of the Colorado River to the far eastern shoreline of Arizona) into a no wake zone would severely restrict and disproportionally effect motorized recreationalists and commercial users in the following ways:
1) Severely restrict Access and navigation of this public waterway, limiting and restricting the motorized public?s ability to access and utilize this shared public resource.
2) Restricting the motorized public?s ability to transverse and utilize this public waterway as a method of transportation and recreation which extremely disproportionally effects the motorized users compared to other types of non motorized users of the refuge.
3) These proposed changes negatively, severely, and extremely disproportionally affect the largest constituent group that accesses and utilizes any portion of the Havasu Wildlife Refuge or any portion of this public water way/system for that matter while being unrepresented in the decision by FWS.
4) As in the Topock ?No Wake Zone? this would increase boat traffic and density creating additional opportunities for collisions, heavy traffic, and accidents by impeding the ingress and egress of users from the south side of the refuge in to and out of Havasu Lake due to forced close quarters operation by the FWS in the proposed ?No Wake Zone?.

About a year ago (May 2015) the USFW created a new no-wake zone in a backwater area of the Refuge which had been long used by wakeboarders and water skiers seeking smooth water. Acting on the complaints of a few non-motorized watercraft users, that motorized use above 5 mph was harming the wildlife habitat in that area and compromising the safety of non-motorized recreationalists. USFW proceeded to install buoys making it a restricted no-wake zone FAILING to follow Federal mandates for public input and proper notification of the public essentially making there action illegal and against the will of the majority of utilizing constituents.

Now, a year later, USFW is proposing additional no wake zones within the Refuge boundaries further restrict access and use of Refuge waters to motorized recreationalists. The newly proposed no wake zones are primarily located in Topock Marsh backwaters, north of the I-40 Bridge and a marsh-like area at the southern-most tip of the Refuge boundary where river and lake converge.

I am vehemently opposed to ANY new ?No Wake Zones? prohibiting access to motorized recreationalists including power boats, PWC, or any other water sports that require speeds over 5mph or that might create a ?wake?. Additionally I am vehemently opposed to the establishment of ANY ?No Wake Zones? within the 17.5 miles of the Refuge main channel for all of the reasons stated above.

Furthermore; I am requesting immediate removal of the ?No Wake Zone? near the mouth of the river commonly referred to as ?The Shallows? that was placed in 2015. This area was shut down to ?No Wake Zone? which was approved solely by the FWS without the approval of the local constituents and users of the area and WITHOUT the required Public comment period that is mandated to give ALL the people the FWS is suppose to represent an chance to voice their concerns and wishes for the management of their public lands.

Since FWS failed to follow mandated procedure and acted unilaterally FWS actions should put them at liability to the public and their actions immediately reversed. Additionally going forward any proposed changes should, as Federal Mandate Requires, take in to consideration the opinions and wishes of ALL constituents and users of these public resources NOT the opinions or wishes of a few who complained the most.


XXXXXXX XXXXXx
US Citizen, Boating Enthusiast, and concerned local resident




Here is there response:
Thank you for your comments. The public comment period for the draft Compatibility Determination closes on June 13, 2016. At that time, the Refuge will take all substantive comments into consideration when finalizing this determination.

Comments will be accepted until June 13th BUT notice their Bull $hit catch all...."will take all substantive comments into consideration

 

[jackieleatherman]

Does anyone have information on the history of no-wake closures along the Colorado River from Laughlin to Parker Dam?

 

[jackieleatherman]

Has anyone received warnings from the USFW service that they are willing to share with me?

 

[SRice]

I am the law enforcement supervisor for the Havasu National Wildlife Refuge and would like to briefly correct some of the misinformation being perpetuated in this post and elsewhere.
1) There are only two areas where FWS has proposed ANY changes- the Arizona shoreline (out to state line in lake) from Mesquite Bay to the mouth of the river is proposed no wake and the landlocked marsh which paralleles the river (but cannot be accessed from the river) north of Topock 66 is proposed no wake and there was also a suggested 30hp restriction. This area was created by flooding a forest and is a stump farm used almost exclusively by bass fishermen, waterfowl hunters, and paddlers. I don't recall ever seeing a recreation boat on the marsh other than the occasional pontoon boat with a couple fishermen- if you are unfamiliar with the marsh, it is really not appropriate for anything much bigger than a Jon boat.
2) There are NO changes proposed along the river from its mouth to the Refuge boundary north of I40. The admittedly confusing language in the CD referencing regulatory buoys along that stretch of river is referring to long existing restrictions in backwaters, Devils Elbow, I40. Again, NOTHING new has been proposed on this stretch of river by the FWS. I will add the caveat that we are in a public comment period and it is possible that some citizen will suggest a change along the river and the FWS will consider every comment received, but a third time - FWS has not proposed a single change along the 17 mile stretch of river that most boaters are worried about. I have no doubt that people reading this post will assume I am lying and that the FWS really does plan to shut down the river- all I can say to that is that I hope you are pleasantly surprised when none of those fears are realized.

3) A year ago the FWS did expand a backwater no-wake zone in an area being called the "Ride Spot". I received and investigated a complaint by a pair of female paddlers who were deleberately harassed by water skiers who made repeated close passes. Perhaps you can appreciate how terrifying it is to be at near water level as a wakeboat blows past at 40mph 20' away. The paddlers provided photographic evidence, I interviewed and cited the powerboaters, and those individuals accepted a plea deal in lieu of trial. Subsequently FWS began looking at the potential for serious incidents like this in the future (I also investigated a kayak struck by a bass boat elsewhere on the lake) as well as our mandate to manage those backwaters for wildlife and determined that water skiing was not an appropriate use there. The rest of the refuge has been closed to water skiing for years, and we extended that closure to water skis and jet skis by half a mile. Again, that happened a year ago and is not part of the current proposal.

I am not my agency's spokesperson. In fact I'm on vacation with my family sitting at McDonalds and pecking this out. I am writing merely as a boater with personal and professional knowledge of this situation because the shear volume of misinformation being perpetuated is harmful to everyone. I hope this does a little to improve the situation.

 

[Shortdeck]

I am the law enforcement supervisor for the Havasu National Wildlife Refuge and would like to briefly correct some of the misinformation being perpetuated in this post and elsewhere.
1) There are only two areas where FWS has proposed ANY changes- the Arizona shoreline (out to state line in lake) from Mesquite Bay to the mouth of the river is proposed no wake and the landlocked marsh which paralleles the river (but cannot be accessed from the river) north of Topock 66 is proposed no wake and there was also a suggested 30hp restriction. This area was created by flooding a forest and is a stump farm used almost exclusively by bass fishermen, waterfowl hunters, and paddlers. I don't recall ever seeing a recreation boat on the marsh other than the occasional pontoon boat with a couple fishermen- if you are unfamiliar with the marsh, it is really not appropriate for anything much bigger than a Jon boat.
2) There are NO changes proposed along the river from its mouth to the Refuge boundary north of I40. The admittedly confusing language in the CD referencing regulatory buoys along that stretch of river is referring to long existing restrictions in backwaters, Devils Elbow, I40. Again, NOTHING new has been proposed on this stretch of river by the FWS. I will add the caveat that we are in a public comment period and it is possible that some citizen will suggest a change along the river and the FWS will consider every comment received, but a third time - FWS has not proposed a single change along the 17 mile stretch of river that most boaters are worried about. I have no doubt that people reading this post will assume I am lying and that the FWS really does plan to shut down the river- all I can say to that is that I hope you are pleasantly surprised when none of those fears are realized.

3) A year ago the FWS did expand a backwater no-wake zone in an area being called the "Ride Spot". I received and investigated a complaint by a pair of female paddlers who were deleberately harassed by water skiers who made repeated close passes. Perhaps you can appreciate how terrifying it is to be at near water level as a wakeboat blows past at 40mph 20' away. The paddlers provided photographic evidence, I interviewed and cited the powerboaters, and those individuals accepted a plea deal in lieu of trial. Subsequently FWS began looking at the potential for serious incidents like this in the future (I also investigated a kayak struck by a bass boat elsewhere on the lake) as well as our mandate to manage those backwaters for wildlife and determined that water skiing was not an appropriate use there. The rest of the refuge has been closed to water skiing for years, and we extended that closure to water skis and jet skis by half a mile. Again, that happened a year ago and is not part of the current proposal.

I am not my agency's spokesperson. In fact I'm on vacation with my family sitting at McDonalds and pecking this out. I am writing merely as a boater with personal and professional knowledge of this situation because the shear volume of misinformation being perpetuated is harmful to everyone. I hope this does a little to improve the situation.

Maybe you can explain who wakeboards at 40 MPH? Talk about misinformation.

 

[outboardrick]

I am the law enforcement supervisor for the Havasu National Wildlife Refuge and would like to briefly correct some of the misinformation being perpetuated in this post and elsewhere.
1) There are only two areas where FWS has proposed ANY changes- the Arizona shoreline (out to state line in lake) from Mesquite Bay to the mouth of the river is proposed no wake and the landlocked marsh which paralleles the river (but cannot be accessed from the river) north of Topock 66 is proposed no wake and there was also a suggested 30hp restriction. This area was created by flooding a forest and is a stump farm used almost exclusively by bass fishermen, waterfowl hunters, and paddlers. I don't recall ever seeing a recreation boat on the marsh other than the occasional pontoon boat with a couple fishermen- if you are unfamiliar with the marsh, it is really not appropriate for anything much bigger than a Jon boat.
2) There are NO changes proposed along the river from its mouth to the Refuge boundary north of I40. The admittedly confusing language in the CD referencing regulatory buoys along that stretch of river is referring to long existing restrictions in backwaters, Devils Elbow, I40. Again, NOTHING new has been proposed on this stretch of river by the FWS. I will add the caveat that we are in a public comment period and it is possible that some citizen will suggest a change along the river and the FWS will consider every comment received, but a third time - FWS has not proposed a single change along the 17 mile stretch of river that most boaters are worried about. I have no doubt that people reading this post will assume I am lying and that the FWS really does plan to shut down the river- all I can say to that is that I hope you are pleasantly surprised when none of those fears are realized.

3) A year ago the FWS did expand a backwater no-wake zone in an area being called the "Ride Spot". I received and investigated a complaint by a pair of female paddlers who were deleberately harassed by water skiers who made repeated close passes. Perhaps you can appreciate how terrifying it is to be at near water level as a wakeboat blows past at 40mph 20' away. The paddlers provided photographic evidence, I interviewed and cited the powerboaters, and those individuals accepted a plea deal in lieu of trial. Subsequently FWS began looking at the potential for serious incidents like this in the future (I also investigated a kayak struck by a bass boat elsewhere on the lake) as well as our mandate to manage those backwaters for wildlife and determined that water skiing was not an appropriate use there. The rest of the refuge has been closed to water skiing for years, and we extended that closure to water skis and jet skis by half a mile. Again, that happened a year ago and is not part of the current proposal.

I am not my agency's spokesperson. In fact I'm on vacation with my family sitting at McDonalds and pecking this out. I am writing merely as a boater with personal and professional knowledge of this situation because the shear volume of misinformation being perpetuated is harmful to everyone. I hope this does a little to improve the situation.

Thank you for the information, there has been a ton of false speculation regarding this :thumbsup

 

[USMC2010]

I am the law enforcement supervisor for the Havasu National Wildlife Refuge and would like to briefly correct some of the misinformation being perpetuated in this post and elsewhere.
1) There are only two areas where FWS has proposed ANY changes- the Arizona shoreline (out to state line in lake) from Mesquite Bay to the mouth of the river is proposed no wake and the landlocked marsh which paralleles the river (but cannot be accessed from the river) north of Topock 66 is proposed no wake and there was also a suggested 30hp restriction. This area was created by flooding a forest and is a stump farm used almost exclusively by bass fishermen, waterfowl hunters, and paddlers. I don't recall ever seeing a recreation boat on the marsh other than the occasional pontoon boat with a couple fishermen- if you are unfamiliar with the marsh, it is really not appropriate for anything much bigger than a Jon boat.
2) There are NO changes proposed along the river from its mouth to the Refuge boundary north of I40. The admittedly confusing language in the CD referencing regulatory buoys along that stretch of river is referring to long existing restrictions in backwaters, Devils Elbow, I40. Again, NOTHING new has been proposed on this stretch of river by the FWS. I will add the caveat that we are in a public comment period and it is possible that some citizen will suggest a change along the river and the FWS will consider every comment received, but a third time - FWS has not proposed a single change along the 17 mile stretch of river that most boaters are worried about. I have no doubt that people reading this post will assume I am lying and that the FWS really does plan to shut down the river- all I can say to that is that I hope you are pleasantly surprised when none of those fears are realized.

3) A year ago the FWS did expand a backwater no-wake zone in an area being called the "Ride Spot". I received and investigated a complaint by a pair of female paddlers who were deleberately harassed by water skiers who made repeated close passes. Perhaps you can appreciate how terrifying it is to be at near water level as a wakeboat blows past at 40mph 20' away. The paddlers provided photographic evidence, I interviewed and cited the powerboaters, and those individuals accepted a plea deal in lieu of trial. Subsequently FWS began looking at the potential for serious incidents like this in the future (I also investigated a kayak struck by a bass boat elsewhere on the lake) as well as our mandate to manage those backwaters for wildlife and determined that water skiing was not an appropriate use there. The rest of the refuge has been closed to water skiing for years, and we extended that closure to water skis and jet skis by half a mile. Again, that happened a year ago and is not part of the current proposal.

I am not my agency's spokesperson. In fact I'm on vacation with my family sitting at McDonalds and pecking this out. I am writing merely as a boater with personal and professional knowledge of this situation because the shear volume of misinformation being perpetuated is harmful to everyone. I hope this does a little to improve the situation.

The proposed no wake zone changes AT the mouth of the river going North out of Mesquite Bay are significant, your statement number 2. is not completely correct.

 

[spectra3279]

I don't trust anything anyone from the gooberment says. It always starts with something small. And ends with them taking everything.

If you like your insurance, you can keep it. If you like your doctor you can keep them.

Hhhhhhmmmmmm. Where did the insurance and doctor go?

Thanks demo-rats and obama.

You have to pass it to see what's in it.

 

[Shortdeck]

I am the law enforcement supervisor for the Havasu National Wildlife Refuge and would like to briefly correct some of the misinformation being perpetuated in this post and elsewhere.
1) There are only two areas where FWS has proposed ANY changes- the Arizona shoreline (out to state line in lake) from Mesquite Bay to the mouth of the river is proposed no wake and the landlocked marsh which paralleles the river (but cannot be accessed from the river) north of Topock 66 is proposed no wake and there was also a suggested 30hp restriction. This area was created by flooding a forest and is a stump farm used almost exclusively by bass fishermen, waterfowl hunters, and paddlers. I don't recall ever seeing a recreation boat on the marsh other than the occasional pontoon boat with a couple fishermen- if you are unfamiliar with the marsh, it is really not appropriate for anything much bigger than a Jon boat.
2) There are NO changes proposed along the river from its mouth to the Refuge boundary north of I40. The admittedly confusing language in the CD referencing regulatory buoys along that stretch of river is referring to long existing restrictions in backwaters, Devils Elbow, I40. Again, NOTHING new has been proposed on this stretch of river by the FWS. I will add the caveat that we are in a public comment period and it is possible that some citizen will suggest a change along the river and the FWS will consider every comment received, but a third time - FWS has not proposed a single change along the 17 mile stretch of river that most boaters are worried about. I have no doubt that people reading this post will assume I am lying and that the FWS really does plan to shut down the river- all I can say to that is that I hope you are pleasantly surprised when none of those fears are realized.

3) A year ago the FWS did expand a backwater no-wake zone in an area being called the "Ride Spot". I received and investigated a complaint by a pair of female paddlers who were deleberately harassed by water skiers who made repeated close passes. Perhaps you can appreciate how terrifying it is to be at near water level as a wakeboat blows past at 40mph 20' away. The paddlers provided photographic evidence, I interviewed and cited the powerboaters, and those individuals accepted a plea deal in lieu of trial. Subsequently FWS began looking at the potential for serious incidents like this in the future (I also investigated a kayak struck by a bass boat elsewhere on the lake) as well as our mandate to manage those backwaters for wildlife and determined that water skiing was not an appropriate use there. The rest of the refuge has been closed to water skiing for years, and we extended that closure to water skis and jet skis by half a mile. Again, that happened a year ago and is not part of the current proposal.

I am not my agency's spokesperson. In fact I'm on vacation with my family sitting at McDonalds and pecking this out. I am writing merely as a boater with personal and professional knowledge of this situation because the shear volume of misinformation being perpetuated is harmful to everyone. I hope this does a little to improve the situation.

Your post isn't sitting well with me. The proposed no wake at the mouth of the river will make an already difficult to navigate (by average boaters), into a dangerous situation. The proposal bottlenecks boaters.

Your agency let a couple kayakers win a debate with pictures. What a joke. The channel through the "ride spot" is only wide enough for one boat at a time. The kayakers were unwilling to take shallower side. Does your photographic evidence show that?

 

[USMC2010]

Not being the spokesman for your department I am thinking you should have tried harder to just enjoy your vacation instead of posting up incomplete truths.

 

[MSum661]

I am the law enforcement supervisor for the Havasu National Wildlife Refuge and would like to briefly correct some of the misinformation being perpetuated in this post and elsewhere.
1) There are only two areas where FWS has proposed ANY changes- the Arizona shoreline (out to state line in lake) from Mesquite Bay to the mouth of the river is proposed no wake and the landlocked marsh which paralleles the river (but cannot be accessed from the river) north of Topock 66 is proposed no wake and there was also a suggested 30hp restriction. This area was created by flooding a forest and is a stump farm used almost exclusively by bass fishermen, waterfowl hunters, and paddlers. I don't recall ever seeing a recreation boat on the marsh other than the occasional pontoon boat with a couple fishermen- if you are unfamiliar with the marsh, it is really not appropriate for anything much bigger than a Jon boat.
2) There are NO changes proposed along the river from its mouth to the Refuge boundary north of I40. The admittedly confusing language in the CD referencing regulatory buoys along that stretch of river is referring to long existing restrictions in backwaters, Devils Elbow, I40. Again, NOTHING new has been proposed on this stretch of river by the FWS. I will add the caveat that we are in a public comment period and it is possible that some citizen will suggest a change along the river and the FWS will consider every comment received, but a third time - FWS has not proposed a single change along the 17 mile stretch of river that most boaters are worried about. I have no doubt that people reading this post will assume I am lying and that the FWS really does plan to shut down the river- all I can say to that is that I hope you are pleasantly surprised when none of those fears are realized.

3) A year ago the FWS did expand a backwater no-wake zone in an area being called the "Ride Spot". I received and investigated a complaint by a pair of female paddlers who were deleberately harassed by water skiers who made repeated close passes. Perhaps you can appreciate how terrifying it is to be at near water level as a wakeboat blows past at 40mph 20' away. The paddlers provided photographic evidence, I interviewed and cited the powerboaters, and those individuals accepted a plea deal in lieu of trial. Subsequently FWS began looking at the potential for serious incidents like this in the future (I also investigated a kayak struck by a bass boat elsewhere on the lake) as well as our mandate to manage those backwaters for wildlife and determined that water skiing was not an appropriate use there. The rest of the refuge has been closed to water skiing for years, and we extended that closure to water skis and jet skis by half a mile. Again, that happened a year ago and is not part of the current proposal.

I am not my agency's spokesperson. In fact I'm on vacation with my family sitting at McDonalds and pecking this out. I am writing merely as a boater with personal and professional knowledge of this situation because the shear volume of misinformation being perpetuated is harmful to everyone. I hope this does a little to improve the situation.

One of the major concerns is at Mesquite Bay.
Verbage clearly stated in the CD Draft states they can perform "Their Own" periodic reviews of existing waterway conditions and evaluate the need for additional restrictions among a list of other itemized proposed prohibitions. Also, there is nothing stopping certain California based agencies and groups involved to resume future Restrictions or Prohibitions already proposed in this CD and possibly paves the way for additional future closures.

 

[SRice]

Maybe you can explain who wakeboards at 40 MPH? Talk about misinformation.

Fair enough- I am not a wake ladder and do not know what speeds they need. I can say I was provided with a photo of a boat up on plane with a skier in tow and no observer. The vessel was far too close in the photo and I was told the picture was the final of about three passes and that the operator was actually pulling away from them at the time of the photo because the operator saw he was being photographed. Again, I am not commenting officially but rather sharing some information on my own time. If you catch me in an error, it is an honest mistake attributable to me and me alone and I will try to correct it immediately.

 

[SRice]

Fair enough- I am not a wake ladder and do not know what speeds they need. I can say I was provided with a photo of a boat up on plane with a skier in tow and no observer. The vessel was far too close in the photo and I was told the picture was the final of about three passes and that the operator was actually pulling away from them at the time of the photo because the operator saw he was being photographed. Again, I am not commenting officially but rather sharing some information on my own time. If you catch me in an error, it is an honest mistake attributable to me and me alone and I will try to correct it immediately.

Sometimes mistakes also result from autocorrect as in "wake ladder", 3" iPhone screen, and a whole lot of glare...

 

[FreeBird236]

I am the law enforcement supervisor for the Havasu National Wildlife Refuge and would like to briefly correct some of the misinformation being perpetuated in this post and elsewhere.
1) There are only two areas where FWS has proposed ANY changes- the Arizona shoreline (out to state line in lake) from Mesquite Bay to the mouth of the river is proposed no wake and the landlocked marsh which paralleles the river (but cannot be accessed from the river) north of Topock 66 is proposed no wake and there was also a suggested 30hp restriction. This area was created by flooding a forest and is a stump farm used almost exclusively by bass fishermen, waterfowl hunters, and paddlers. I don't recall ever seeing a recreation boat on the marsh other than the occasional pontoon boat with a couple fishermen- if you are unfamiliar with the marsh, it is really not appropriate for anything much bigger than a Jon boat.
2) There are NO changes proposed along the river from its mouth to the Refuge boundary north of I40. The admittedly confusing language in the CD referencing regulatory buoys along that stretch of river is referring to long existing restrictions in backwaters, Devils Elbow, I40. Again, NOTHING new has been proposed on this stretch of river by the FWS. I will add the caveat that we are in a public comment period and it is possible that some citizen will suggest a change along the river and the FWS will consider every comment received, but a third time - FWS has not proposed a single change along the 17 mile stretch of river that most boaters are worried about. I have no doubt that people reading this post will assume I am lying and that the FWS really does plan to shut down the river- all I can say to that is that I hope you are pleasantly surprised when none of those fears are realized.

3) A year ago the FWS did expand a backwater no-wake zone in an area being called the "Ride Spot". I received and investigated a complaint by a pair of female paddlers who were deleberately harassed by water skiers who made repeated close passes. Perhaps you can appreciate how terrifying it is to be at near water level as a wakeboat blows past at 40mph 20' away. The paddlers provided photographic evidence, I interviewed and cited the powerboaters, and those individuals accepted a plea deal in lieu of trial. Subsequently FWS began looking at the potential for serious incidents like this in the future (I also investigated a kayak struck by a bass boat elsewhere on the lake) as well as our mandate to manage those backwaters for wildlife and determined that water skiing was not an appropriate use there. The rest of the refuge has been closed to water skiing for years, and we extended that closure to water skis and jet skis by half a mile. Again, that happened a year ago and is not part of the current proposal.

I am not my agency's spokesperson. In fact I'm on vacation with my family sitting at McDonalds and pecking this out. I am writing merely as a boater with personal and professional knowledge of this situation because the shear volume of misinformation being perpetuated is harmful to everyone. I hope this does a little to improve the situation.

Part of the problem is your agencies proposal is so amateurishly done, it has caused many questions. It also seems you're not quite up on all the details, but thanks for trying.

 

[Scott E]

Fair enough- I am not a wake ladder and do not know what speeds they need. I can say I was provided with a photo of a boat up on plane with a skier in tow and no observer. The vessel was far too close in the photo and I was told the picture was the final of about three passes and that the operator was actually pulling away from them at the time of the photo because the operator saw he was being photographed. Again, I am not commenting officially but rather sharing some information on my own time. If you catch me in an error, it is an honest mistake attributable to me and me alone and I will try to correct it immediately.

Thanks for taking the time address this issue. While there will certainly be disagreements, dialogue between your agency and the perspective that you can bring as a on-the-water LEO should only help to solidify the understanding on both sides. I look at your participation the same way I looked at Boatcops when he was running the La Paz County Boating Safety Unit on the Parker Strip, more good than bad came out of his participation and I hope for the same with your participation.

 

[USMC2010]

I hope so to Scott but let's play devil's advocate for a minute. Signs up just before Memorial Day, posts a couple of times, once with good info and then immediately goes into this thread and almost parrots responses containing errors about the proposal all the while stating they are not an official spokesman. I for one am skeptical but open to change if warranted.

 

[Scott E]

I hope so to Scott but let's play devil's advocate for a minute. Signs up just before Memorial Day, posts a couple of times, once with good info and then immediately goes into this thread and almost parrots responses containing errors about the proposal all the while stating they are not an official spokesman. I for one am skeptical but open to change if warranted.

Agreed. But hopefully more good comes out of his/her participation than bad. At a minimum, hopefully, we get a real, rational perspective from someone who works that side of this issue and others affecting all of us when it comes to boating on Havasu and the rest of the river. Also, where things are incorrect, on either side, they do need to be pointed out as you and others have done. I was confused on the issue until I read some of the comments on this site by those that were able to attend the meetings.

 

[RiverDave]

SRice I would like to take a second to say THANK YOU for actually coming out and saying something, anything, regarding the matter. Understandably you will take a little flak on it due to the nature of the conversation, but the fact that you came out and spoke to us boaters means a lot to me and I'm sure quite a few others.

I have one question that seems to go unanswered to every person I ask and it's simply "Why?"

Why all of a sudden is it necessary to put restrictions on the Marsh? You said it yourself it's a stump farm and very few people actually go on plane up there?

Why increase the No Wake Zone at the mouth of the river to the state line?

There is some underlying agenda here as to "Why" that nobody is answering.

Why try to fix something that isn't broken?

If there was an incident between an inconsiderate power boater and a kayaker then the incident should be handled individually.

If there is an incident where safety was a concern then again that incident should be dealt with individually.

Major changes and moving mountains over minor incidents that are mole hills doesn't make sense.. Which brings us full circle to "Why?" Where is all this coming from?

 

[Shortdeck]

Fair enough- I am not a wake ladder and do not know what speeds they need. I can say I was provided with a photo of a boat up on plane with a skier in tow and no observer. The vessel was far too close in the photo and I was told the picture was the final of about three passes and that the operator was actually pulling away from them at the time of the photo because the operator saw he was being photographed. Again, I am not commenting officially but rather sharing some information on my own time. If you catch me in an error, it is an honest mistake attributable to me and me alone and I will try to correct it immediately.

If in fact they were wakeboarding, they were going half the speed you mentioned. They were probably going closer to 20. Your agency let a few individuals who couldn't share, close a portion of the lake that was used by many.

 

[SRice]

Your post isn't sitting well with me. The proposed no wake at the mouth of the river will make an already difficult to navigate (by average boaters), into a dangerous situation. The proposal bottlenecks boaters.

Your agency let a couple kayakers win a debate with pictures. What a joke. The channel through the "ride spot" is only wide enough for one boat at a time. The kayakers were unwilling to take shallower side. Does your photographic evidence show that?

The change to the Ride Spot went into effect a year ago and it is my impression that it affects skiers and PW S but few others.The Havasu Marine Association created the no wake zone and dredged channel along the California shoreline several years ago. That leaves the central channel which is probably used by about 90% (rough guess) of Havasu boaters and it is on the California side where no change is proposed. I guess I should take a look on Google Earth and confirm that this entire cut is California, but that is my recollection from all the times I've consulted my GPS in the area when talking to duck hunters and trying to determine whether they require an Arizona or California hunting license. If it's all California in that central channel, as I believe, nothing changes for the average boater the hint to go upriver.

 

[milkmoney]

A group of kayaks got in my way , so I should of video and made a complaint to have them go somewhere else or have an area restricted for any person operating a kayak.

Not sure why this is stuck in my head after reading your post. Jus seems that if you have video or pics you can make a complete complaint and effect 1000's of boaters or persons using a kayak.

I am scratching my head. [emoji202]

 

[MSum661]

Must say....ya learn something new everyday!

Have a great day all! Out.

 

[Shortdeck]

The change to the Ride Spot went into effect a year ago and it is my impression that it affects skiers and PW S but few others.The Havasu Marine Association created the no wake zone and dredged channel along the California shoreline several years ago. That leaves the central channel which is probably used by about 90% (rough guess) of Havasu boaters and it is on the California side where no change is proposed. I guess I should take a look on Google Earth and confirm that this entire cut is California, but that is my recollection from all the times I've consulted my GPS in the area when talking to duck hunters and trying to determine whether they require an Arizona or California hunting license. If it's all California in that central channel, as I believe, nothing changes for the average boater the hint to go upriver.

I'm aware of the CA no wake and its dredged channel. If I was to guess its usage it would be more like 20 percent.

I would like to see you answer RiverDaves questions, as I'm also curious as to WHY.

 

[Tommy Gun Images]

I hope so to Scott but let's play devil's advocate for a minute. Signs up just before Memorial Day, posts a couple of times, once with good info and then immediately goes into this thread and almost parrots responses containing errors about the proposal all the while stating they are not an official spokesman. I for one am skeptical but open to change if warranted.

Should also be noted that his post comes directly after two posts by Jackie Leatherman, a reporter for the Havasu News Herald, asking for statements and info...

 

[RiverDave]

The change to the Ride Spot went into effect a year ago and it is my impression that it affects skiers and PW S but few others.The Havasu Marine Association created the no wake zone and dredged channel along the California shoreline several years ago. That leaves the central channel which is probably used by about 90% (rough guess) of Havasu boaters and it is on the California side where no change is proposed. I guess I should take a look on Google Earth and confirm that this entire cut is California, but that is my recollection from all the times I've consulted my GPS in the area when talking to duck hunters and trying to determine whether they require an Arizona or California hunting license. If it's all California in that central channel, as I believe, nothing changes for the average boater the hint to go upriver.

I don't want to detract from my initial question as to why, but I will point out you are correct the current proposed restriction wouldn't be a "huge" impact to those making way up river. My issue with it though is just a few years back before that 100 year storm one of the main channels was in the proposed NWZ. With the way the sands shift so much in that area it is very possible that after another large storm it could shift back.. And once the area is closed then it's closed and there would be nothing that could be done easily to reverse the process.







Down here at Realty Execs making the copies of the 3600 petitions that were signed right now to send out to USFWS, Dr. Tuggle, and others right now..

 

[RiverDave]

Should also be noted that his post comes directly after two posts by Jackie Leatherman, a reporter for the Havasu News Herald, asking for statements and info...

SRice has posted on here before that.

This particular thread was written before the comment periods and there was some small errors in the original post which I am happy he corrected. Subsequent threads written afterwards were a more accurate portrayal of the CD and what is in it.

 

[Tommy Gun Images]

3) A year ago the FWS did expand a backwater no-wake zone in an area being called the "Ride Spot". I received and investigated a complaint by a pair of female paddlers who were deleberately harassed by water skiers who made repeated close passes. Perhaps you can appreciate how terrifying it is to be at near water level as a wakeboat blows past at 40mph 20' away. The paddlers provided photographic evidence, I interviewed and cited the powerboaters, and those individuals accepted a plea deal in lieu of trial. Subsequently FWS began looking at the potential for serious incidents like this in the future (I also investigated a kayak struck by a bass boat elsewhere on the lake) as well as our mandate to manage those backwaters for wildlife and determined that water skiing was not an appropriate use there. The rest of the refuge has been closed to water skiing for years, and we extended that closure to water skis and jet skis by half a mile. Again, that happened a year ago and is not part of the current proposal.

So, you cited the boaters under the existing laws which protect folks like these kayakers from such an incident and they paid their debt for their transgressions. It seems there are already good and enforceable laws in place to protect against the safety issues you are speaking of.
I think much of the concern here is the tendency for overreach by Federal agencies such as yours. I for one do appreciate that someone has finally decided to speak up and try to explain the other side. I hope you continue to do so. Please don't expect everyone to be simply placated by saying that we have nothing to worry about, however.

 

[Tommy Gun Images]

SRice has posted on here before that.

This particular thread was written before the comment periods and there was some small errors in the original post which I am happy he corrected. Subsequent threads written afterwards were a more accurate portrayal of the CD and what is in it.

I understand that. I'm just pointing out that his statement at hand came directly after request from a news outlet for comment. And I agree, it's good that someone from the other side of the issue is commenting on the concerns of us here.

 

[wallnutz]

Don't you know how it works...:skull