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

[MSum661]

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

The question still boils back to "Why?"

worth repeating...

http://www.havasunews.com/news/freq...cle_aaa787a2-3043-11e6-8901-5781c5881c03.html

"Who supports the closures?

Representatives from Anglers United have been a major proponent of the additional two miles of closures. According to the draft compatibility determination, In November 2015, the President of Anglers United contacted the Refuge and requested extension of the existing no-wake zone approximately two miles along the Arizona shoreline from the south regulatory buoy line southward to Mesquite Bay South. Anglers United have indicated they believe that the additional no-wake zone will provide a safer recreational opportunity for non-motorized boaters and will help to protect a spawning area for fish and other aquatic species."


Many will also not accept the notion the heavily budgeted Sierra Club is also behind the scenes to help lend a hand. JMHO and just sharing whats out there.

 

[spectra3279]

It's the rider that says they can determine more closures without doing any further studies that gets me. To me that says this year they will do this. Next year they close the whole thing. And everyone knows that's what they will do. Seen it before government wants people under their thumb.

You know it's gotten bad when we fear the government and they have no fear of we the people

 

[RiverDave]

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

The comment period is closed?

 

[SRice]

The comment period is closed?

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

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

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

 

[Singleton]

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

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

I don't want to argue with you, since you have provided some useful data points, however your above comment is 100% wrong.
The only way FWS can implement additional restrictions is with a CD and public comment period, unless they classify the closure to address a safety issue. These new restrictions being discussed allows FWS to implement additional restrictions without a CD & public comment period without having to use the safety condition.
The closure and buoy movement last year was implemented as a safety measure, but as you stated that was due to only 1 incident (no other incidents are on file) being reported. That closure IMO did not follow FWS policies and procedures. You can't use the safety card when only 1 reported incident occurred in that area.
This is why so many boaters are pissed about this issue. FWS did something last year claiming safety (IMO this is not true) and now wants to close a 2x1 mile section of the lake claiming additional safety concerns. Total BS and overstep by an agency.

 

[spectra3279]

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

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

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

I'm sorry, but every abc agency is over stepping their bounds. I don't think yours is gonna be any different

 

[SBMech]

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

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

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

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

 

[SBMech]

In my e-mail to the Director of your agency I suggested that they remove the illegal restrictions since they were based upon a SINGLE event, obvious a powerplay and massive over reach.

Those suggestions don't count? You want us to accept the fact that your agency did NOT follow legal procedure and just let you add even more restrictions?

How about you take your buoys that were placed unlawfully and back down off this issue. That's my "suggestion".

 

[twocents]

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

 

[mash on it]

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

Be careful what ya ask for, ie: Willow Beach and north- 70 out of 365 days for power boats. Yeah we have 19% of the year.

Dan'l

 

[SRice]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Bradsrvrtoy.]

"Saddle up or Paddle up"

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

 

[spectra3279]

"Saddle up or Paddle up"

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

Don't even make fun of it. That's probably next on their agenda

 

[Singleton]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[SRice]

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

TwoCents, I personally agree with a lot of what you said and consequently DO NOT take my family out on the river at all in the summer in our underpowered motorboat. But legally (as opposed to common sense and survival instincts) the river is very different from I40. The interstate is designed and intended for motorized vehicles all traveling at approximately the same speed. Pedestrians, cyclists, and OHVs are often excluded from interstates and I suspect those laws are exist because they cannot keep up with traffic. But that's not true of the river where all have a right to recreate. In fact the "rules of navigation" specifically require that motorboats give way or yield to sailboats, vessels under tow, and other vessels with reduced maneuverability. Canoes must follow the rules too and have no business running down the left side of the river, but motorboats need to be operated in a manner that allows them to avoid these hazards just as motorists must be alert to children chasing balls into the road. If everybody knew and complied with existing regulations, we'd be in great shape- sadly that is not the case.

 

[Flying_Lavey]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[SRice]

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

Everybody is "bigger and faster" than me in my personal boat with its 10hp 1970's era Johnson. I think I can get 18mph if the current is in my favor...

I've hit the wake off the ferry in my patrol boat a time or two and don't disagree, though I've also taken it across the lake to Havasu Landing many times and amazed at how little wake they can produce when they slow it down. Regardless, the BOR/BLM are the Federal agencies responsible for the portion of the Lake where the ferry operates. FWS has an MOU with BLM to do enforcement on the main body of the lake (obviously state and MCSO too), but we are not the agency that writes the regs there.

 

[MSum661]

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

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

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

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

 

[Lumpy]

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

 

[SRice]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[SRice]

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

The Havasu News Herald carried a story about the Avi meeting with a picture of the Mayor speaking. I am the officer visible on the edge of the stage above Nexsen and I and my supervisor both spoke to Dave after the meeting- I suspect he'll remember our conversation and I believe I gave him my handwritten contact info if he cares to check my name. Does that make me any more credible?

http://www.havasunews.com/news/prop...cle_1640b6aa-11bd-11e6-bff7-dbae6d4579c9.html

 

[Lumpy]

OK Awaiting proof you are legit.

 

[Havasteve]

Why cant we just do away with the obnoxious wake boats. Designing a boat just to make a giant wake is just stupid. They are so annoying I hate being anywhere near them. Wake board boats suck.:grumble:

 

[hallett21]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Hammer]

I am convinced that they are going to do what they want. SRICE repeatedly made references towards performance boaters that we are the problem. They are going to enforce the no wake buoy line and when that isn't "safe enough" they will extend it completely to their satisfaction. All it takes is one complaint from
A kayaker and they take away the performance boaters freedom to enjoy the waterways like kayakers want. There clearly is no middle ground.

SRICE basically insinuated that all Lake Havasu boaters are unsafe boaters that drink. Therefore they are going narrow the pathway for boaters to safely travel through the mouth of the river.

The second there is a boating collision because they narrowed the entry area they will clearly extend the buoy line all the way because they will deem it "unsafe".

 

[SRice]

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

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

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

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

 

[USMC2010]

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

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

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

and you base this from what data?

 

[SRice]

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

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

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

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

 

[Lumpy]

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

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

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

Again, Until you can prove your legitimacy I can't believe a word you say on this forum. Surely a man of your position would understand that. Sir, please provide proof so that we
may continue with a constructive dialog.

 

[SRice]

and you base this from what data?

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

 

[USMC2010]

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

None of that information provides any statistical data to support your opinion. In all of your conversation you have provided very little factual data to support any proposed changes, in fact the only data you have provided is the one incident and the total number of violations in recent years.

 

[hallett21]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Lumpy]

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

 

[hallett21]

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


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

 

[SRice]

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

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

 

[USMC2010]

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


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

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

 

[SRice]

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

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

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

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

 

[Flying_Lavey]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[SRice]

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

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

 

[hallett21]

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

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

 

[Lumpy]

View attachment 491339

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

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

 

[USMC2010]

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

Well, you sure mailed out a lot of warnings on 1 May of this year.

 

[SRice]

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

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

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

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



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

Probably not going to change your opinion but another small correction. FWS does not make a penny on its citations- that is not motivating any of this. All funds go to the Central Violations Bureau where they are used to financially assist the victims of Federal crimes. The National Park Service has a restitution law called "19jj" after the US Code where it is found; FWS does not even have this and does not recoup even direct financial losses caused by criminal activity again agency holdings.

I would be happy to see boater education for every boater out there.

 

[SRice]

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

#2170 is correct and my email is [email protected]. If you write me there in the next five minutes I will reply and perhaps we can get past this- my wife is already telling me to get off the computer. I will say that having given out my email address, I am not going to comment on any of these topics from a work account or on government time. I am offering my personal opinions and giving you some access to me on my personal time. The FWS does not necessarily concur in these opinions so I must carefully draw a line between my personal and professional activities and opinions. In short, I won't be responding to hundreds of emails addressed to my work account- just your one final effort to verify that I do work for FWS.

 

[twocents]

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

 

[SRice]

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

That is incorrect (assuming I understand you). The only speed restrictions south of Sandbar are the backwater bays, Speed Alley, and the dredge channel the Havasu Marine Association created just south of the FWS boundary. The river is unrestricted in this area. Some have suggested that paddlers just recreate in the backwater bays but the obvious flaw in that suggestion is that getting to them requires navigating up/down via the unrestricted stretches of river.

 

[SRice]

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

I agree with everything you just said, though I will add that the FWS made repeated attempts to correct the record and clarify the admittedly confusing draft CD. We are only just now starting to convince people that we never intended to close the full 17 miles of river (as so many of those you listed have claimed and continue to claim). Actually, I doubt we have convinced more than a few dozen people of that but it does help that River Dave's petition apparently dispelled this misinformation. The Federal government is pretty unpopular these days and I think that makes it easy for everyone to assume the worst. I regret that. I have not received an email from Lumpy so I think I'm gonna pull the plug for the night- but thanks for vouching for my ID. Good night, all.

 

[spectra3279]

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

It does look like a piece of paper with wrinkles on the left side

 

[Ziggy]

Srice sounds "personally" convinced the closure is a good idea and carries his personal opinion into his work.
Why must the majority suffer to please the agenda seeking few?
Why hamper the economy and industry that built Havasu?
Our government treats us citizens 100 times worse than the most aggressive HOA.

 

[SOCALCRICKETT]

^this.

There is blatant bias in Mr. Rice's responses. There is nothing wrong with being an enthusiast for the paddling community, but unfortunately ones personal opinions and feelings have taken stronghold over the logical aspect of this debate. I appreciate Mr Rice coming on here to release some information about behind the scenes, but it is clear that he is not on our side.