Table Rock Buoy Removal and Massive Boat Wakes

[m&m]

BC, well said. 

Mike

[vernon]

1 hour ago, BrowningCollector.com said:

State Legislative Representative Look up -  http://www.senate.mo.gov/LegisLookup/ZipLookup.aspx

Claire McCaskill - https://www.mccaskill.senate.gov/contact

Roy Blunt - https://www.blunt.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/home

Billy Long - https://long.house.gov/

Find your U.S. Congressional Representative - https://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

I will post the letter I sent to my Reps next week along with the info above. Most likely on a new sticky as to refresh the conversation to more of "the next step of call to action".  From what I heard at the Reeds meeting the COE is well aware of the massive boat wakes, but are limited to their "leaders" in D.C.  The Corps official I spoke with politely said that "folks need to voice their concerns to Washington" if they want to try to stop the chaos. In the conversation, I felt as though the Corps rep was saying..... please help us.  Contacting the State of Missouri Reps wouldn't hurt, but it is a Corps lake.

Another thought would be to try to get KY3, KOLR 10 and KSPR 33 to do a story on the shoreline erosion, dock destruction and safety issues of having massive boats and wake board and surf board boats on a lake the size of TR.  Any leads on that process would be great.  Looking at the Water Patrol stats of accidents and deaths / history of.......... would be a good thing to introduce to the media. 

 

 

"In the conversation, I felt as though the Corps rep was saying..... please help us."

Thanks for mentioning that because I guarantee you that that is exactly what they were saying!

There are ZERO elected positions at the COE and the very vast majority of those guys and gals are exactly like we are.  They want what's best for the public and the environment and they desperately want to preserve those very things that we treasure so greatly.

While I was working at the COE there were many times that I thought to myself, ya know, I really don't need all this help just to look stupid and uncooperative.

If this grassroots type effort actually works, it will be one of the very first times ever.

Fortunately, there are first times for everything!

Keep after em' guys!

[Ketchup]

Driving at 9::30 this morning, i heard a radio ad for this situation on 94.7. I believe it was a realty company or something paying for the ad slot. Good to see it getting spread around. 

[Ellros]

59 minutes ago, Ketchup said:

Driving at 9::30 this morning, i heard a radio ad for this situation on 94.7. I believe it was a realty company or something paying for the ad slot. Good to see it getting spread around. 

  Big add in this week's  Stone County Gazette from some organization (EDIT...   Save TableRock.com) .  But their add appears to put the entire blame on the Corps for the SMP

 

   Interestingly.... one of the points they mention, was the SMP will prohibit storing fishing tackle on Docks or in Dock boxes.  

[Ketchup]

Yes that was in th radio ad as well, which i found odd, that ones personal belongings on their own dock. Could be limited, as well as the number of people on the dock. After hearing that part, my thoughts were to make it sound as bad as possible for those uninvolved, to get a simpathy vote. But thats just my take on those small details that were added. 

[tapout]

From what I can tell the "Save Tablerock.com" is lobbying for more docks, bigger slips, and less restrictions. This is a quote from their QandA page.

Q: Aren’t new regulations needed to keep the lake from becoming overdeveloped?

A: No. The current regulations are extremely restrictive already, and the new proposals would only take things too far. Many have said they don’t want Table Rock to become as developed as Lake of the Ozarks. We agree completely, however, Table Rock has such strict limitations that even fully developed, it wouldn’t come close to the density of Lake of the Ozarks. For instance, under Table Rock’s current regulations, less than 5% of the shoreline is currently available for the possibility of a community boat dock. Under current regulations, no mature tree on the Corps’ shoreline could be cut down. The bottom line is that the current plan has been a reasonable balance for decades. If it’s not broke, why try to fix it?

[Quillback]

25 minutes ago, tapout said:

From what I can tell the "Save Tablerock.com" is lobbying for more docks, bigger slips, and less restrictions. This is a quote from their QandA page.

Q: Aren’t new regulations needed to keep the lake from becoming overdeveloped?

A: No. The current regulations are extremely restrictive already, and the new proposals would only take things too far. Many have said they don’t want Table Rock to become as developed as Lake of the Ozarks. We agree completely, however, Table Rock has such strict limitations that even fully developed, it wouldn’t come close to the density of Lake of the Ozarks. For instance, under Table Rock’s current regulations, less than 5% of the shoreline is currently available for the possibility of a community boat dock. Under current regulations, no mature tree on the Corps’ shoreline could be cut down. The bottom line is that the current plan has been a reasonable balance for decades. If it’s not broke, why try to fix it?

They must have hired "Baghdad Bob" to write their propaganda. 

[bobby b.]

3 hours ago, Ketchup said:

Yes that was in th radio ad as well, which i found odd, that ones personal belongings on their own dock. Could be limited, as well as the number of people on the dock. After hearing that part, my thoughts were to make it sound as bad as possible for those uninvolved, to get a simpathy vote. But thats just my take on those small details that were added. 

I've read the SMP report and went to the meeting and was told that what was published is what is being considered.  There was nothing in there about personal belongings and number of people on a dock.  That said there was nothing in the old SMP about hanging swings on a dock but we had to take ours off suggesting that the COE makes it up as they go.

I did read later that the solar power thing and buoy thing was going to be revisited due to the number of comments.

There may be allot of misinformation out there and hidden agendas.

[MOPanfisher]

3 hours ago, bobby b. said:

 

There may be allot of misinformation out there and hidden agendas.

Surely not!

[Matt Henry]

   On 7/26/2017 at 6:32 PM,  Matt Henry said: 

I also think it's funny the Dam was built for watershed management and to create electricity.  Maybe the corps should shut down the dam for the production of energy if they want solar only in 10 years on docks.  

The corps want to keep manpower to further a political agenda.

Like what?

 

Like taking away your choice on how to power your dock in 10 years.