OSMB proposed changes to boat operation on the Willamette

From my understanding of the boating rules when I took the boaters exam is that manually powered watercraft have right of way to a powerboat.  It doesn't list exceptions for wakeboarders having the right to have fun at the expense of the right for a kayaker to travel freely up or down the river.

The OSMB also has a page dedicated to "Wake" that isn't specific to any body of water in Oregon. 
https://www.oregon.gov/osmb/boater-info/Pages/Wake.aspx

Not sure how or why it is needed to regulate any other watercraft to accommodate a powerboat?
If a wakeboard boat isn't going to use the waterway safely, by being mindful of all other watercraft on the water, then they should be ticketed like any other boater, or told to use a different body of water to fulfill their personal pursuit of fun.

ORSs in point:
Maintaining a proper lookout. (ORS 830.335)
The operator of a boat shall keep a proper lookout at all times while underway. Example of violation: Pulling and watching the skier, not the water ahead.

Unsafe operation. (ORS 830.305)
Operation that endangers or would likely endanger a person or property. Example of violation: Your boat wake causes a canoe to nearly capsize.


There was also a line item in the boater education information that said something along the lines of who has right of way or not making a wake if there is any watercraft actively angling.  I have to go to work in a few, so I don't have time to locate the exact wording at this time.

I'm not trying to defend the proposed rule overly much, but I think the point of the non-powered craft staying out of the middle of the river is that the river is pretty narrow along most of those miles, and you're supposed to give non-powered craft the right of way and a wide berth, which puts the big-wake boats closer to the shore and private docks, which is what they're trying to avoid.

So the powerboaters are like, "Well, we can't avoid getting close to docks if the middle of the river is filled with rafts and SUPs and kayaks" which is true enough.

I think a better solution would be for the powerboaters to just have to deal with it by slowing down to a no-wake speed, which I think is what you're saying, INSAYN. It feels to me like a make-up call for putting new restrictions on the wakes.

After fishing the lower Coquille late last year, where it's about 400' wide, this rule is neither going to make it safer for non-motorized boating nor for those homes along the river.  The powerboats passing us slowed down to minimize their wakes but we not only got hit by the primary wake, we also got hit my the wake rebounding back off both banks.  Mind you, these were only little 12" wake waves, not the wakes needed by wakeboarders.

If little wakes rebound (more than once) in a roughly comparably-sized river, any claim this could possibly make the river more safe and/or protect private property makes no sense to me.

If kayak fishing is a sport with only a few adherents, I'd bet good money we'd find far fewer wakeboarders across the state.  Just saying.

The amount of reflected wave depends a lot on the slope and substrate of the shore area. In some places it dissipates pretty well and in others there's lots of reflected waves.

This rule is total, absolute bull shit. It wreaks of money talking and special interests. It sets an absolutely terrible precedent.  Wakes caused by wake boats with increased ballast tanks increases erosion of the banks so they think that keeping the center of the river open for wake boats will minimize the impact of the wakes along the shoreline, which is bullshit. The decrease in energy of wakes that big is negligible over a few hundred feet - it's still enough to screw up the bank.

This rule is total, absolute bull shit. It wreaks of money talking and special interests. It sets an absolutely terrible precedent.  Wakes caused by wake boats with increased ballast tanks increases erosion of the banks so they think that keeping the center of the river open for wake boats will minimize the impact of the wakes along the shoreline, which is bullshit. The decrease in energy of wakes that big is negligible over a few hundred feet - it's still enough to screw up the bank.

What's the alternative? It seems to me that anything else is an all-or-nothing approach. Either wakeboard boats go wherever they want whenever they want, or we don't allow "wake enhancing devices" in certain areas at all. What do you propose?

(Serious question, not trying to stir up trouble.)

I've been a fan of banning wake enhancing devices on the Willamette River for a while. Personally I think that's the way to go.

I see a great opportunity for a massive NWKA fish and chill during the prime wakeboard season, say 300-400 kayaks all trolling as we “cross” the river?

This rule is total, absolute bull shit. It wreaks of money talking and special interests. It sets an absolutely terrible precedent.  Wakes caused by wake boats with increased ballast tanks increases erosion of the banks so they think that keeping the center of the river open for wake boats will minimize the impact of the wakes along the shoreline, which is bullshit. The decrease in energy of wakes that big is negligible over a few hundred feet - it's still enough to screw up the bank.

What's the alternative? It seems to me that anything else is an all-or-nothing approach. Either wakeboard boats go wherever they want whenever they want, or we don't allow "wake enhancing devices" in certain areas at all. What do you propose?

(Serious question, not trying to stir up trouble.)

Well, let's review what the problems are, and the current approach to mitigate. 

*Shoreline erosion.  Keep wake boats in the center of the river.  Inconclusive if this is actually resolving the erosion issue.
*Dock damage.  Keep wake boats in the center of the river.  Inconclusive if this is actually resolving the dock damage issue.
*Disturbing human-powered watercraft.  We suck it up or go somewhere else.  Obviously, human-powered craft does not have right of way to the power boats on this stretch of the river.
*Human powered watercraft hindering the wakeboarding experience.  Bob and weave through all of these stupid people clogging up the river.


What is the common source of the problems stated above? 
1.) Shoreline causing the concern?  Should we move the shoreline to accommodate wake boats?
2.) Docks causing the concern?  Should we move/removed all docks from the river to accommodate wake boats?
3.) Kayaks/canoes/SUPs causing the concern?  Should we restrict river travel on these watercraft to accommodate wake boats?
4.) Wake boats causing the concern?  Should we just eliminate the source of excessive wakes in these areas?

Wait?
Looks like it makes more sense to accommodate wake boats, as #3 is an actual proposal.  Money over logic. 

There are miles and miles of open Columbia River to spend the day ripping up the wakes on a wakeboard without impacting anyone. 

I see a great opportunity for a massive NWKA fish and chill during the prime wakeboard season, say 300-400 kayaks all trolling as we “cross” the river?

I was thinking the same thing.   

Our luck, they would probably tweak the rule and not recognize zigzagging as trolling for fish thus not letting us cross the river because we would be in the way of wakeboarders having their fun.   

I've been a fan of banning wake enhancing devices on the Willamette River for a while. Personally I think that's the way to go.

I don't disagree, I just doubt it's a realistic solution, unfortunately. Although they've done more drastic things than that elsewhere.

I'm questioning if this isn't a tempest in a teapot. How many non-powered fishermen are fishing the center of the Willamette between rivermiles 30 and 50? How many non-powered boats are even using that area?

I've spent some time in that stretch of the river, and I can tell you that the new restrictions aren't going to bother me, as I stay close to the bank anyways, fishing structure and/or trying to stay in the shade. I've rarely seen any other canoes and kayaks there, as launch points are few and far between.

If you want to argue on the grounds of it's a bad precedent, as a 2nd Amendment supporter I completely understand the slippery slope argument. But if you're more upset about the number of non-powered watercraft users that are being restricted, in my opinion you should chill a bit. It's not a much of a sacrifice.

I'm questioning if this isn't a tempest in a teapot. How many non-powered fishermen are fishing the center of the Willamette between rivermiles 30 and 50? How many non-powered boats are even using that area?

I've spent some time in that stretch of the river, and I can tell you that the new restrictions aren't going to bother me, as I stay close to the bank anyways, fishing structure and/or trying to stay in the shade. I've rarely seen any other canoes and kayaks there, as launch points are few and far between.

If you want to argue on the grounds of it's a bad precedent, as a 2nd Amendment supporter I completely understand the slippery slope argument. But if you're more upset about the number of non-powered watercraft users that are being restricted, in my opinion you should chill a bit. It's not a much of a sacrifice.

I look at this as more along the lines of you give them an inch, they'll take a mile, than anyone being a tempest in a teapot.

Let us ask ourselves how did this proposal come to be in the first place?  Why wasn't a representative of the human-powered craft asked to be at the table helping draft this proposal along with the wake boat representative there?

If they are successful at making this restriction on one group for the "pleasure" of another, it would just be a matter of time where they wouldn't hesitate to apply this on another body of water that will affect you personally.  How will this be enforced, who will do the enforcing, and what will be the penalty? 

People in Oregon with the power to restrict, fine, or impose on others have a really bad habit of making decisions based solely on who can pay the most to get their way.

What would be the negative impact on making this area a no wake zone, or just keep to the boating rules already in place and enforcing them? 

This rule is total, absolute bull shit. It wreaks of money talking and special interests. It sets an absolutely terrible precedent.  Wakes caused by wake boats with increased ballast tanks increases erosion of the banks so they think that keeping the center of the river open for wake boats will minimize the impact of the wakes along the shoreline, which is bullshit. The decrease in energy of wakes that big is negligible over a few hundred feet - it's still enough to screw up the bank.

you give them an inch, they'll take a mile, ... Let us ask ourselves how did this proposal come to be in the first place?  Why wasn't a representative of the human-powered craft asked to be at the table helping draft this proposal along with the wake boat representative there?

If they are successful at making this restriction on one group for the "pleasure" of another, it would just be a matter of time where they wouldn't hesitate to apply this on another body of water that will affect you personally.  How will this be enforced, who will do the enforcing, and what will be the penalty? 

People in Oregon with the power to restrict, fine, or impose on others have a really bad habit of making decisions based solely on who can pay the most to get their way.

What would be the negative impact on making this area a no wake zone, or just keep to the boating rules already in place and enforcing them? 

Pretty much how this rule looked to me. Seems fairly obvious.

I see a great opportunity for a massive NWKA fish and chill during the prime wakeboard season, say 300-400 kayaks all trolling as we “cross” the river?

I was thinking the same thing.   

Warped minds think alike! Or was great minds? He’ll I can’t remember