REMOVABLE OF DOCK BUOYS?????

[Browning Guy]

18 hours ago, merc1997 said:

as i read through the post,  and it mentioned to cut down on excessive damage to not only docks but to shoreline as well.  does that mean the boats throwing the big excessive wakes are going to be brought down to idle only.  only in my dreams.

bo

Bo couldn't agree more.

Witnessed the wakeboard damage to the banks on TR this weekend.  If they remove the buoys there will be a lot more damage to docks and a greater safety issue to those on the docks.  Wakeboarders, skiers and tuna rig owners could care less about how far off a dock they are.  Look at Lake of the Ozarks. State law doesn't mean jack to those people, but if they see a buoy they will generally stay off the dock.  A buoy sends a reminder and boaters are generally respectful to the buoy. So, four months out of the year buoys are an issue to who?  YES, the same people with wake board boats and tuna rigs.  The other 9 months probably no issue at all. By all means Corp and Waterpatrol, please bow (no pun intended) down to the wakeboard boats and tuna rig ocean going vessels on TR once again. 

Unbelievable how much wake boats throw compared to some of the larger boats.  IF the Corp really cares about the environment......the amount of erosion caused by the lake being held high in the winter, flooding and subsequently wake board boats and ocean going vessels cause INCREDIBLE damage to the banks...... IF the waterpatrol and corp remove the no wake buoys it will cause thousands of dollars of damage to peoples docks.  Of course they think having a no wake buoy is "redundant to current state law and having a sign on a dock"  will fix the issue.  I guess my alternative when they take our buoy is calling the water patrol every time some fool runs 50' off our dock.  I think the corp and waterpatrol have lost control of TR during the summers.  TR has become LOZ south. SAD.

[Browning Guy]

Worth the read here.  A friend who has a buoy and has been in touch with the Corp at Tablerock and the Water Patrol.  So far, this is what he has been told and what his thoughts are. He put a game trail cam on his dock when he did not have a buoy and showed me photos of how close the wake boarders, tuna rig owners and skiers got to his dock.  I can guarantee they are well under the 100' "redundant state law" Mr. Waltz of the highway patrol references. .  

 

www.swl.usace.army.mil/Portals/50/docs/tablerocklake/Shoreline/Table Rock Lake SMP Focus Group Meeting 2 Memo.pdf?ver=2015-11-09-122538-303   Then scroll to page 16 ish.   For those who have a buoy...... you better get engaged or you will be losing them.  You can send me a PM and I will help direct you in getting with other buoy owners.

 

 

Corp & Waterpatrol Argument:  (so far)

    1 ) Buoys are redundant to Missouri state law and therefore buoys are not needed.

    2)  Buoy owners are not maintaining the required 100' distance from the dock.  Sometimes under, sometimes over depending on the water level.

    3)  A sign stating "no wake within 100' " should suffice and replace buoys.   (wake board boats and tuna rigs give a hoot and will read a

        sign on a dock as they go by).

    4)  The Corp and Water Patrol have received complaints from boaters about buoys. (evidently no dock owners call complaining about boaters).

    5)  The Corp and Water Patrol do not receive complaints from dock owners about boats breaking the 100' law now. 

 

According to Mr. Oller......Corp & Waterpatrol plans to assist dock owners in preventing boats from being on-plane under the 100' law by:

    1)  Better education for boaters.  (YES, educate all the out of state folks who are not focused on Missouri state law when they come to TR.  THAT

         WILL HELP RIGHT? )

    2)  Placing signs on docks. (SERIOUSLY.  This is your remedy? AGAIN  !)

    3)  Better waterpatrol enforcement will eliminate the issue. (I'm sure the three water patrol officers on the four major arms of TR will put complaints   

         about driving too close to docks at the top of their list).

 

A portion of my (his) questions are:

    1) How can they possibly believe a sign on a dock will stop fools from getting within 100' of docks? and 100' is subjective and will be hard to prove.

    2) How many waterpatrol agents will be made available on an hourly basis on the four major arms of Tablerock to respond to dock owners

        complaints about boaters? and how do you prove it?

    3) What priority will dock owners receive when they make phone calls complaining about boaters?

    4) Will the Corp and Waterpatrol reimburse dock owners in paying for the buoy, cable, weight and cost associated with placement of the buoy that the

        Corp and Waterpatrol originally approved for use?  My buddy just (two months ago) replaced his buoy and cost over $600 for the buoy and

        cable.

I told him to start calling the water patrol every 20 minutes and complain about the boats coming within 100' of his dock. 

[MOPanfisher]

FWIW, the COE is not driving the boat (no pun intended) on the reduction/removal of No Wake Idle Speed buoys on the lakes.  It is the MSHP that is responsible for the requests, authorization, and inspections of those buoys.  What I could glean from the one paragraph was that the MSHP wants to reduce the number of buoys, and wants the COE to require dock owners to put up a sign on their docks instead.  Similar to the 911 Address signs from a few years ago, some COE lakes went along and required the 911 signs as part of the permit, others didn't, I am unaware of any enforcement of the 911 dock address signs on the lakes.  I suspect that some of the recent issues with large wakes, especially at LOZ will cause some re-consideration of the entire No Wake areas and while I suspect the MSHP will continue to go away from buoys everywhere, there will likely be some areas that become NWIS, don't know how that will work out.

[GNSfishing]

Well you all need to capture the registration number of the boats that violate the 100 ft rule and turn them in. Also if they damage the dock, boat (swamp), or cause bodily injury report them. These wake boats are causing a lot of damage to the shore line, docks & boats. The fishermen are feed up with the careless manner in which these boats are operated in conjunction to other boaters on the water. The wakes are so high that they wash over the nose of a fishing boat if you don't turn you nose of the boat in to the wake the wake will capsize your normal fishing boat. Remember the squeaky wheel will eventually get the grease.....      

[Browning Guy]

2 hours ago, MOPanfisher said:

FWIW, the COE is not driving the boat (no pun intended) on the reduction/removal of No Wake Idle Speed buoys on the lakes.  It is the MSHP that is responsible for the requests, authorization, and inspections of those buoys.  What I could glean from the one paragraph was that the MSHP wants to reduce the number of buoys, and wants the COE to require dock owners to put up a sign on their docks instead.

The water patrol is responsible for the buoy permits and without question they are looking to remove all buoys.  After speaking with Mr. Oller from the Corp my buddy said they (the Corp) is in support of removing the buoys also. Mr. Oller referenced the other lakes in the white river chain do not have buoys on them like TR so TR shouldn't have them either. My buddies response was that Beaver, Bull Shoals and Norfork are not nearly as populated, have much fewer docks and do not get the boat traffic Tablerock does so the need for buoys isn't there.

As a fisherman and a dock owner, I believe TR is getting to be similar to LOZ in boat traffic. Removing buoys from private dock owners and have them put small signs on their docks is ridiculous. They (corp and waterpatrol) are not wanting to reduce the number of buoys, they are wanting to remove them all except around marinas (again per Mr. Oller at the Corp). I want everyone to enjoy TR, but show respect for the fisherman and dock owners. Right now, neither is happening.

[MOPanfisher]

Again that is in line with what the MSHP I doing all over.  The COE is falling in line.  As if they had any real choice in the matter.  If the MSHP, as the agency that permits and enforces the law and wants to change it then what are you going to do, except express disagreement.  As for TR it will eventually go the same way as LOZ, whatever ends up happening there with NWIS buoys and no wake zones.  Most definitely make your thoughts, comments and feelings know to the MSHP in Jeff City, even better if it were to come from an organized group of Marina Owners etc. As a boater I see in smaller waters that often boaters simply ignore buoys, signs, and common courtesy where wakes are concerned.  I wish I had an answer that would work, some sort of magic formula I could pour into the water supply and suddenly everyone would think about the effect a boat wake has on other boats, docks shoreline etc.  I know the COE does some odd things (trust me I have seen it up close) but this one is coming down from the state level, in fact I believe that the MSHP would love to be completely out of the buoy permit business except for enforcement, similar to MOOT establishing speed limits on roads and then MSHP doing the enforcement.  The buoy program was inherited with the merger of the old Water Patrol and MSHP sees it as a detracting from their main purpose of enforcement, but that is a topic for cold beer, hot coffee or mediocre fishing. 

[96 CHAMP]

18 hours ago, Nitroman said:

Don't ever forget that you are dealing with a US Government run & funded agency. Who employs people that are lucky if they can walk, chew gum, & scratch their butt @ the same time. Most of them could care less & do as little as possible & are currently out trying to drum up votes for Clinton to protect their jobs. Come on " TRUMP " !!!!!!!  

I thought that this would be one place where a man could have some peace of mind and not have to hear anything about politics, I guess I was wrong.

[96 CHAMP]

6 hours ago, BrowningCollector.com said:

Bo couldn't agree more.

Witnessed the wakeboard damage to the banks on TR this weekend.  If they remove the buoys there will be a lot more damage to docks and a greater safety issue to those on the docks.  Wakeboarders, skiers and tuna rig owners could care less about how far off a dock they are.  Look at Lake of the Ozarks. State law doesn't mean jack to those people, but if they see a buoy they will generally stay off the dock.  A buoy sends a reminder and boaters are generally respectful to the buoy. So, four months out of the year buoys are an issue to who?  YES, the same people with wake board boats and tuna rigs.  The other 9 months probably no issue at all. By all means Corp and Waterpatrol, please bow (no pun intended) down to the wakeboard boats and tuna rig ocean going vessels on TR once again. 

Unbelievable how much wake boats throw compared to some of the larger boats.  IF the Corp really cares about the environment......the amount of erosion caused by the lake being held high in the winter, flooding and subsequently wake board boats and ocean going vessels cause INCREDIBLE damage to the banks...... IF the waterpatrol and corp remove the no wake buoys it will cause thousands of dollars of damage to peoples docks.  Of course they think having a no wake buoy is "redundant to current state law and having a sign on a dock"  will fix the issue.  I guess my alternative when they take our buoy is calling the water patrol every time some fool runs 50' off our dock.  I think the corp and waterpatrol have lost control of TR during the summers.  TR has become LOZ south. SAD.

need to have a petition drawn up and get all the signatures you can and send it in, after all we all pay there wages through our taxes. Just a thought.

[dan hufferd]

I am going to put buoys 100' around my boat, and a sign. I am going to make a mobile walleye hot spot. 

[abkeenan]

1 hour ago, 96 CHAMP said:

I thought that this would be one place where a man could have some peace of mind and not have to hear anything about politics, I guess I was wrong.

I got into a political argument a few months back with a member here. I won't do it again. It's not worth it and Phil I'm sure doesn't want to deal with it. Funny thing though, this individual has never posted a single response about fishing on this forum EVER. Not a single mention of a report or contributing in any way to the sharing of fishing information.