OSMB proposed changes to boat operation on the Willamette

I rarely fish it but I know some here consider it their home water.  Have you seen the proposed changes?

https://www.oregon.gov/osmb/info/Documents/Rulemaking/NoticeFilingWillametteRiver.NewbergPool.11.28.18.pdf

For kayak fishing this section could be an issue.

(7) Except for the purposes of crossing the Willamette River, a person operating a non-motorized boat from May
15 to September 15 between river mile 30 and river mile 50 must remain within 100 feet of the shoreline during
the following times:
(a) Between the hours of 3 p.m. and sunset Monday through Friday.
(b) Between the hours of 12 noon and sunset on Saturdays and legal holidays

Guess the powerboats think we’re in the way during rush hour ...... can they instill fines for bicycles that cross the white line on the highway? 

that makes absolutely no sense to me, but I'm not familiar with the area...is there something about that stretch of the river that would prompt that sort of bizarre rule?

Riverbank million dollar homes with docks at odds with the proliferation of wakeboard boats using ballast tanks to produce a larger wake.  I think the non motorized rules are to give the ballast boats center run of the river so the wake can dissipate energy before it hits shoreline structures.

Riverbank million dollar homes with docks at odds with the proliferation of wakeboard boats using ballast tanks to produce a larger wake.  I think the non motorized rules are to give the ballast boats center run of the river so the wake can dissipate energy before it hits shoreline structures.

if so, restricting wake producing boats to only operate more than 100 feet from shore seems the logical approach, leave non-motorized boats out of it.     

Riverbank million dollar homes with docks at odds with the proliferation of wakeboard boats using ballast tanks to produce a larger wake.  I think the non motorized rules are to give the ballast boats center run of the river so the wake can dissipate energy before it hits shoreline structures.

if so, restricting wake producing boats to only operate more than 100 feet from shore seems the logical approach, leave non-motorized boats out of it.   

Make that section of river a no wake zone.... how many of them million dollar homes docks have ski boats sitting on there docks? Never Ben on that section.

How do you get across if the river is wider than 200 feet?

*edit:  I just read the whole thing.  I guess you can cross.

Objectively fishing that stretch for bass probably 30+ times over the last 3 years I can't say I've ever fished more than 100ft from shore, even most of the rockier honey holes are closer to shore than that... All that being said If the goal is keep wake boats away from kayakers I don't think that will do it as the wakeboard boats don't give a crap about kayakers regardless of where we are, and having been there on a hot sunny afternoon you definitely want to steer clear of them as you can't count on them paying attention to save your life.

I do find this little bit interesting which is likely why the regulation is for the kayakers and not for the boaters:

DESCRIBE HOW SMALL BUSINESSES WERE INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THESE RULE(S):
A small business representative from a watersport boat dealership was involved in crafting the concept of the proposed
rule.

(7) Except for the purposes of crossing the Willamette River, a person operating a non-motorized boat from May
15 to September 15 between river mile 30 and river mile 50 must remain within 100 feet of the shoreline during
the following times:
(a) Between the hours of 3 p.m. and sunset Monday through Friday.
(b) Between the hours of 12 noon and sunset on Saturdays and legal holidays

So... I guess it's open season on Sunday? That's often the busiest day on the river; seems odd, but whatever.

If I'm reading my map correctly, river mile 30 starts at "The Narrows" a couple miles upstream from Willamette Park at West Linn (as opposed to the Willamette Park at downtown Portland). This certainly wouldn't interfere with 99% of salmon/steelhead fishing, which I'm guessing is most of what people on here care about. There are smallmouth in that stretch for sure but most of the fishing is within a 100 feet of shore anyway.

I think that the above comments are correct regarding intent. What I see around the narrows a lot of times is people go on SUPs and kayaks for an evening paddle and maybe they're not used to being on the water much, and they're just right out in the middle of the river which makes it difficult for boats to pass by without disrupting their paddle or getting close to land owners' property.

My opinion on the rules:

I used to wakeboard pretty frequently, and several of my buddies still wakeboard and waterski, so I have much love for some aspects of the sport. However, these new rules are absolutely necessary. The boats have gotten huge, the ballast tanks have gotten huge, and the Willamette isn't Lake Havasu. I feel for folks who maybe thought living near the Willemette was a reasonably affordable place they could take their 6-figure wakeboard boat out for an evening session, but it's a busy, many-use, narrow waterway with tons of private property docks. Honestly I've never understood why so many wakeboarders like the Willamette to begin with; you can trade 30 minutes of drive time for miles of wide open water at the Columbia.

I will be curious to see if any of this is actually enforced, though. What I see on the Willamette where I fish it is mostly people doing whatever they want (PWC buzzing 20-30mph a few yards off the shore in 3 feet of water, wakeboarders 30 feet off someone's dock, etc.) until a Sheriff's boat comes by and everything settles down for a few minutes until the Sheriff leaves, then it's just business as usual. I did see a kid get towed back to his mommy and daddy's riverfront home by the Sheriff once after he and his buddies were wakeboarding through the springer fishermen (seriously, like using the boats as a slalom course in some of the narrower parts of the river). But mostly the Sheriff boats just pass through once in a while. I assume that they don't have funding to do regular patrols.

... the wakeboard boats don't give a crap about kayakers regardless of where we are, and having been there on a hot sunny afternoon you definitely want to steer clear of them as you can't count on them paying attention to save your life.

Yep. I go to some lengths to stay out of their way and probably 50% of wakeboarders and PWC still get unnecessarily close, sometimes antagonistically. Again, I used to do these things and I never saw a reason to bother paddlers.

DESCRIBE HOW SMALL BUSINESSES WERE INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THESE RULE(S):
A small business representative from a watersport boat dealership was involved in crafting the concept of the proposed
rule.

The correct way to read this is: The owner of Active Water Sports heard about the new rules and got mad so we let him be involved.

I've contacted OSMB and just got a response, below in bold what I heard back.

my impression:  if the average river width is 500', then the new rule covers 1.1 square miles of the Willamette river (300' x 20 miles) and the effect of the rule is to ban fishing over that area of water unless you are using a motor (or have titled/registered your kayak and are carrying a motor, it does not need to be in use, more on this below). 

next is the "Except for the purpose of crossing the Willamette river" which contains no restriction on crossing and then deciding to cross back, which is what trolling often is.  So unless they change the wording, I see no restriction on trolling across at an angle, getting to within 100' of the shore, then turning to 'cross' back, and so on.

"The Board’s authority lies in the regulation of boat operation not of fishing.  You are correct in saying a non-motorized boat would be able to cross the river while trolling, they would also be able to cross back across the river while trolling....it would prevent non-motorized boats from operating outside of 100 feet from the shoreline during those times other than to cross the river.  The rule is not attempting to regulate the fishing actions of the individuals in the boat."

I think this might fall under "distinction without a difference" logic-  saying we are not placing restrictions on fishing more than 100 feet from shore because the rule only says you cannot operate a non-motorized vessel more than 100 feet from shore, logically falls apart because the effect is the same-  you can't fish in that area unless you are using a motor or crossing the river.

So I guess the next thing I am looking is an ODFW response to what seems to me is an unintended angling restriction resulting from a poorly designed boating restriction. 

As for registered kayaks that are carrying a trolling motor, they are not covered by the restriction regardless of whether the motor is being used or not, which adds to the goofiness of this proposed rule.

"You are correct, if your kayak has a motor attached regardless of whether it is in use it is considered a motorboat and the proposed rule would not apply."

cheers, roger

Did half of “Warner Brothers Loony Toons” get elected or appointments to office in Oregon? All I can say is Holy #U€K!N Shit that’s stupid!!

I agree that I don't like the precedent this sets. But the impact to fishing in this case is extremely small in my opinion. That said, I will always fall in the camp of not treating "non-motorized watercraft" differently, so this does leave a bad taste in my mouth.

One of the problems is that kayakers/SUPers are only a small portion of the river users, then fishing kayakers/SUPers are an even smaller portion, so I think a lot of times people don't think about how things impact us.

I think a lot of times people don't think about how things impact us.

Exactly.  They had a riverside land owner and a powersports representative negotiate this "treaty" with no seat at the table for a non motorized user group rep. 

I agree that I don't like the precedent this sets. But the impact to fishing in this case is extremely small in my opinion. That said, I will always fall in the camp of not treating "non-motorized watercraft" differently, so this does leave a bad taste in my mouth.

I'm also primarily concerned with the big picture and precedent it would set, plus I think it is a poorly worded/defined rule that would make fair enforcement seemingly impossible.   

"Are you aware that you are restricted to within 100' of shore?".

"I'm 'crossing' the river".

"Alrighty then, have a nice day".