I'm definitely in favor !

[tjm]

10 minutes ago, fishinwrench said:

most are pretty good at not getting busted.  

I just assumed there was a general lack of desire for law  enforcement in that area. Party hearty and all that.

So you believe there are enough water patrol available to enforce such a law? Could they enforce it without slacking off on other duties? Are cell phone videos considered factual evidence in a Court?

[WeekendWarrior]

32 minutes ago, tjm said:

So you believe there are enough water patrol available to enforce such a law? 

There is the problem right there

[fishinwrench]

At this point I can tell you that there are more than enough people upset about the water conditions here that the lawmen are gonna have to do their best.  People complain way more about the insanely rough water conditions than they do about drunk drivers or anything else.  There were 17 meetings about it last year where it was standing room only.  These elected officials are at the crossroads where they have to do SOMETHING.  That's all I know.  

Whether a video is considered factual evidence or not they can't just ignore and disregard it anymore than they can ignore and disregard video surveillance footage at Banks, Convenience stores, and Wal-Mart, so you WILL get charged.  You can fight it in court if you want....but that will cost a hell of a lot more than 25.00

[fishinwrench]

1 hour ago, tjm said:

So you believe there are enough water patrol available to enforce such a law?

Absolutely.  They need plenty more to do, they spend entirely too much time just floating around talking to their girlfriends on the phone and waiting for someone to give them probable cause for a stop.  This will help fill up some of that down time and help us get our money's worth out of them.   

[shrapnel]

1 hour ago, tjm said:

 

So you believe there are enough water patrol available to enforce such a law?

They stopped me 4 times last year, never got a ticket.  One was for running without my lights on at dusk, I know I had them on I think my knee hit the rocker switch when we hit a wake.

[tjm]

10 minutes ago, fishinwrench said:

where they have to do SOMETHING

OK, I believe that and the guy has filed a bill, that is his something. If it never gets out of committee, he can always say he tried.

Best of luck with this. Really is too bad though that they chose to discriminate, all wakes should be treated equally,  all shore line should be treated equally.

[moguy1973]

16 hours ago, fishinwrench said:

That was my initial thought too, but nobody can deny that the time to do SOMETHING has arrived.   They're gonna have to come to terms with something pretty darn quick.  

There is one consequence of this particular set of new rules that I bet nobody is thinking about.   Such as it would make the upper Gravois (above the neckdown at Mill Creek.) an idle only area for boats over 26'.     Lots of big boats live above there, and those folks are gonna have a poop himmorage if they have to idle 5-8 miles whenever they leave or come back to their dock.  

Does the main channel of the Gravois Arm neck down to 800' at any point?  That's not very far, just over an 1/8th of a mile (.15mi).  Seems like the skinniest part is .20mi

[fishinwrench]

1 minute ago, tjm said:

OK, I believe that and the guy has filed a bill, that is his something. If it never gets out of committee, he can always say he tried.

Best of luck with this. Really is too bad though that they chose to discriminate, all wakes should be treated equally,  all shore line should be treated equally.

I don't see any discrimination.  They are bringing back the old rule of "you are responsible for your wake" that was once fully in effect, but started getting ignored because people with lots of money didn't like it, and it was inconvenient and sometimes impossible to enforce.   

They are taking steps to make it more convenient and more possible to enforce.   Better than continuing to do nothing.

[fishinwrench]

6 minutes ago, moguy1973 said:

Does the main channel of the Gravois Arm neck down to 800' at any point?  That's not very far, just over an 1/8th of a mile (.15mi).  Seems like the skinniest part is .20mi

Straight across from Gibson point, at the mouth of Mill cr. I believe it is less than 260 yards (780 feet) 

[shrapnel]

30 minutes ago, tjm said:

OK, I believe that and the guy has filed a bill, that is his something. If it never gets out of committee, he can always say he tried.

Best of luck with this. Really is too bad though that they chose to discriminate, all wakes should be treated equally,  all shore line should be treated equally.

No way.  A bass boat wake has almost a zero % chance of damaging anything.  A 40' plow or wake boat will flat tear poop up.