DNR Proposes to Change “No-Wake”

DNR Proposes to Change “No-Wake” Language in Boating Regulations



DES MOINES – The Iowa Department of Natural Resources is accepting public comments on a proposal to change the use of “no-wake zones” with defined speed restrictions of five miles per hour in the Boat Motor Regulations.

Any interested person may make written suggestions or comments on the proposed amendments on or before October 28, 2010. Send written comments to Susan Stocker, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Wallace State Office Building, 502 E. 9th St., Des Moines, IA 50319-0034, or by fax to 515-281-6794 or email to susan.stocker@dnr.iowa.gov.

Persons wishing to convey their views orally should contact the Iowa DNR’s Law Enforcement Bureau at 515-281-0122.

The proposed change will be the topic of a public hearing on October 28, from 1 to 3 p.m., in the fifth floor east conference room, Wallace State Office Building, 502 E. 9th St., in Des Moines. At the public meeting, persons may present their views either orally or in writing.

Persons attending the public meeting who have special needs, such as hearing or mobility impairments, should contact the Iowa Department of Natural Resources and advise them of those specific needs.

From the IABass website


HERE

And this is news to me.

Commission Approves Dove Hunting, Adds Non-Toxic Shot Requirement

Posted: 07/14/2011
DES MOINES – Final approval of a rule that will allow the hunting of mourning doves in Iowa was approved Thursday by the Iowa Natural Resource Commission which also added an amendment that would require hunters to use non-toxic shot.

The non-toxic shot requirement follows several discussions by the commission during the past year concerning the impacts of lead shot to the environment and on wildlife. Lead – or toxic – shot used in hunting can be ingested by wildlife. There has been a national ban on the use of lead shot for waterfowl hunting since 1991 with non-toxic shot for waterfowl being in place in Iowa since 1987.

The rules approved by the commission allow for a dove season starting Sept. 1st and ending Nov. 9th. The final rule allows the harvest of 15 doves a day and can be either mourning or Eurasian collared-doves. The possession limit is 30 and the season is open state-wide.

Commissioners added and approved an amendment on Thursday that would require hunters to only use non-toxic shot while hunting doves anywhere in the state of Iowa.

The decision to ban toxic shot for dove hunting was based largely on the fact that much of the hunting occurs over a small area which would increase the likelihood of lead concentrations being created.

“There will be a number of hunters who will be opposed to this decision, but at the end of the day, this action by the commission will help protect Iowa’s environment and wildlife from the adverse affects of lead,” said DNR Director Roger Lande.

What is the DNR going to do? Start running a radar gun on the lakes? But that would first require there to be some sort of enforcement in place, which of course, they do not have. Really, its kind of a joke if you ask me. They can't enforce it now, so whats a speed limit going to do for you?!

As far as nontoxic shot is concerned. Well, it is with good intention, but talk about a bad deal for the hunter. I don't know of much non toxic, small shot size (8-9), loads out there. Especially ones that perform halfway decent. And if they do exist, with as much shooting that is involved with dove hunting, it could become pretty costly in a hurry.

Steel shot has come a long ways. I am perfecty fine with it. Can't look a gift horse in the mouth!!

You can get a flat of steel for around 60 bucks. We are talking a 6 ounce bird here, if you can't kill them with steel, well....that just your own fault!!!

5 mph in my boat, leaves a wake. 5 mph in Choppers boat is probably close to no wake.

They can't enforce it now because it's so subjective as to WHAT no-wake "IS".

This does make sense in my mind. It takes away the guess work. I would guess a large percentage of boats have some type of gps ground speed to reference, including the DNR/Corp of Eng Rangers/Coast Guard.

.

The no wake thing or idle speed only is a joke for many. Everytime I go out I seemed to get rocked by a wake that some body made. I know my boat speedometer won't register 5 mph so guess we will have to use our gps to figure out how fast we are going? Give me a break! I don't know what the answer is.

Well it's a start. Reminds me of Bill Clinton . . "That depends on what your definition of "is" is",

At least we ALL know what the definition of No-Wake "is" now.

For me, I look at my ground speed on my GPS all the time. I know that with two fats guys and a cooler of beer, going downstream on the river, my boat can reach 34mph.

Not every decison the DNR makes is without merit . .

For Bill, I think it depends on your definition of sex too. "I didn't have sex with that woman, not once!"

This is interesting. I have always used 6 mph on gps as my cruising speed on a no wake lake. I suppose now I'll have to cut it back a little. I will say, @ 6 mph you are making some wake so if I have rocked your boat any of you then I am sorry, I really don't feel to bad about it though.


I get my boat rocked now and then too, I never really think a thing about it, don't really care or bother me. Guess its part of the thought that some days on the river I can't stop the boat from rocking for even a couple seconds so a few wakes never hurt nobody.


I think it is rediculous to think they will ever enforce it but if that is the way they want the law to read then it is less subjective. Just a lot of time wasted debating something that really means and does nothing. That is the silly part to me. Wasted tax dollars there I would say.

Waves in a small lake do something. They erode the shoreline, I think that is the reason for the no wake or idle speed only. Maybe I am wrong.

fishrman wrote:

Waves in a small lake do something. They erode the shoreline, I think that is the reason for the no wake or idle speed only. Maybe I am wrong.

Oh absolutely they do. I'd venture to bet though that if you took every boat wake that has ever hit any shoreline on any lake in the state that it wouldn't amount to a whole heck of a lot of anything for damage though. Wind waves do far more damage or an extended period of beating a bank than a few boat wakes will ever do. IMO. Farmers silt entering a lake will do far more damage. However I don't see anyone trying to stop the wind or farming.


Just saying, I don't think boat wakes from a boat running a little to fast on a no wake lake rate very high on the list of things that destroy our lakes. I'd be shocked if it would even make the top 10 if there was a study done. Again, JMO.

I think in a lot of lakes is more of a safety thing for small craft, as well as all the giant trees sticking up outta the water!

bustinbeaks wrote:

I think in a lot of lakes is more of a safety thing for small craft, as well as all the giant trees sticking up outta the water!

Fo sho!

I have zero problems with no wake lakes. Even ones like G that IMO it wouldn't hurt at all to allow people to run on. I just think that if people expect a boat to go past them and not even feel so much as a shake of the boat from the "wake" then they better just stay as far away from me as possible cause I tend to think that is splitting hairs a little bit. Long as the dude ain't plowing water I am fine. I'd rather him just get on plane and haul azz wherever he wants, long as he's not plowing the azz end making as big a wake as humanly possible. Like the DNR at McBride was a couple years ago. :evil:

it's funny these two items were brought up today, just last night I was talking with my DNR buddy and he was talking about some of the new laws and how ridiculous they were and the steel shot and the no wake thing were at the top of his list.

He said "How am I supposed to prove how fast someone is going?" He went on to say he could take video with his phone for proof of excessive wakes, but there is no way of knowing how fast someone is going.

The steel shot thing...He said you wouldn't believe the political BS involved in this. I will see if he will let me do a phone interview with him as I think you guys would like to hear some of this stuff from someone in the field. I kind of doubt he will though just to protect himself and his job...I will see...He said he will not be checking for steel shot

Another new law= 200hp MAX on 3 Mile Lake :shock: Do you know how many tournaments are held there per year? A Lot! Most newer rigs you see these days have a minimum of a 225.

Darrin wrote:

Another new law= 200hp MAX on 3 Mile Lake :shock: Do you know how many tournaments are held there per year? A Lot! Most newer rigs you see these days have a minimum of a 225.

What in the heck would be the purpose of that?? :scratch:
It kind of reminds me of the MacBride issue with the small motors. The small motors on those small boats can and do make just as big a wake as lots of the bass boats out there.
For me, if you are making a wake on a no wake lake, you are breaking the law. Maybe a 5 mph limit would be better, I don't know. I am sure I would make a wake going 5 mph like most would. The wind might produce a bigger impact on the shoreline than the wakes from boats but it still makes me mad when I see someone going across the lake (on a lake like G) with an obvious wake with their bow up in the air off the water.
I copied this from a study done on a particular lake:
Boat Wakes
In comparison to wind generated waves, the energy generated by boat wakes are minimal in comparison. Wind blows constantly, whereas boats only run for a few hours everyday, and generate only a few waves with each pass. However, boat waves are a fairly significant factor in areas where wind waves are not much of a threat. Dellwood Circle is such an example. Boat wake height is dependent on a number of factors: velocity, distance from shore, length of boat, and the draft of the boat (the draft, or depth of the boat beneath water, is quite dependent on speed). A typical wave train from a boat wake may consist of 10-15 waves, only 3-4 of them will be of a fairly significant wave height. It is not unlikely that a boat traveling close to shore (which is unavoidable in Squaw Bay due to it's small size) will generate a wave that will reach shore at a height of 1.5 feet. Cabin cruisers and ski boats are notorious for generating the highest waves among recreational watercraft. Again, as with wind generated waves, the impact on shorelines is quite significant, especially in times of especially high water.
I have been researching lakes in SD and because of all the high water they are having up there now, there are a number of lakes that have imposed no wake.
Here is a study that was done in Wisconsin. Lots of reading material on the subject:
http://www.wblcd.org/Sciencefornowakezoneinmarsh.pdf

Well, then I guess I am breaking the law. I ain't skeered though, I break the law all the time. Not really breaking the law unless you get caught. Heck on one of them G videos where I was fishing right to the stroms entrance and lightning flashing as soon as I dropped the rod I took off and hammered down to the dock. Yeah I could have left earlier but I didn't, just like some times I speed to get to something cause I waited to long to leave the house, or I drive home from the lake after having 3 beers instead of 2. All ILLEGAL things to do. Life goes on and my God forgives me for what I have done when I confess my sins. So I ain't loosing one lick of sleep over the fact that when I move spot to spot on the lake I do it at 6 mph. Even if there is a little wake. I do it mostly because at that speed it is just enough rpm that the motor runs nice and smooth and does not have the tendancy to load up with excess fuel like can happen when running just a shade slower.


I don't really see how a study of wakes crashing the bank on an unrestricted lake relates to the waves generated by a boat that is operating at no wake speed or close to it. I understand that giant pleasure boats are the single largest cause of huge boat wakes and banks caving in. However I don't see how that plays into anything when your talking about a no wake lake. I will be making a wake at 5 mph too. Fugg, my trolling motor makes a wake behind my boat when I have it on full power. Should I turn that thing down too? Like I said, splitting hairs. Just one of them things John and I are going to have to agree to disagree on.

Like you said, everyone has one!

Interesting replies here.

I'm for the no wake, and against motor restrictions, but like Darrin's DNR buddy said, "How is he going to enforce it?" I really doubt the DNR gets issued radar guns, so enforcement could be even tougher.

And as for the Non-toxic shot for Dove. I say it's BS! They finally got on board with all the surrounding states on the Dove season so we aren't missing out on the dollars generated, or lost from not having a season, and then they go and pass a stupid law like that. In my opinion the state surely won't gain any non resident dollars for Dove just because they increased the price to hunt them compared to surrounding states. I think it's just a dig from the anti dove people that are pizzed the season passed, so now they try to make it cost more for the hunter.

Her is something else to think about with this proposal with Lake MacBride being a prime example. Sailboats and pontoons. Many of the sailboats that use MacBride have a deeper draft and with the long keel actually generate a much larger wake than I do. Yet because they do not, at least most do not, have a motor are they going to be restricted to 5mph. No wake is no wake. I don't care what kind of water craft it is. Also I have been fishing when a pontoon has gone by and believe me they too can put off quite a wake, even if they don't draft as much water.
Many of the no wake rules were put in to keep jet skis from abusing the water ways not just bassboats or other fishing boats with larger motors. And yes to suposedly reduce shore erosion. I would wager that my boat,Brandons boat, Johns boat or Randys boat generate a much smaller wake on plane than they do at 5mph. JMO.

We aren't the only state that requires non-toxic shot to hunt doves. Granted, most others only require it on public land, but still, its nothing new.

But I agree, it was a push from the anti's that got it done.