No Wake Zone

[chasineyes]

I AM VERY SERIOUS!!

I'm getting tired of people complaining when...they build by an airport and complain about airplane noise??? they build by a state park/snowmobile trail and complain about snowmobiles driving around??? they build by a free way and expect a "sound wall" to built because the cars are noisy??? they build their nice country place only find dust is a problem??? they build/on a lake and complain when mother nature says screw you and drops 7" inches of rain.

I understand the part of "speeding" through channels (which by the way, have you ever seen the narrows on Leech? not much slowing down going on there ), marinas etc.. but to close down a public lake because of damage to residential altered shoreline is well...

[Ufatz]

Excuse me...? "..if someones property is close enough to a body of water for a wake to do damage...". Most ALL the lake shore cabins I've ever seen are located on a piece of land that abuts water. This property is therefore "close enough for a wake to to damage". Some lake shores are easily damaged by wind and waves and wakes. Other shorelines are more stable, rocky, higher or less prone to such damage.

I believe you'll find that not all lake shore property is impacted by wakes but you will find that almost invariably it is located close to a body of water. Ha.

Enjoy the water this summer. The way this heat is going all the water will evaporate and we won't need to fear wake damage anyway.

Just snow up to your nose hairs in December!!

[Ufatz]

Whoooaaa....."close down a lake?"

Where did anybody say a lake had been closed down because of a no wake posting?

Let's try to put this in perspective. Let's say you live on a nice quiet suburban street, have a nice shade tree and a small lawn where the kids can play and the dogs frolic. You are accustomed to cars passing through the neighborhood routinely, moving at moderate safe speeds.

Now, let's say some day all those neighbors decide to pass your house at 70 miles an hour, radios blasting, dust blowing and noisy engines howling.

Would you be in favor of a 20 mph speed limit in front of your house?

Sure you would. And what would you think of somebody, a driver of one of those cars, if he said "well, you knew there was going to be a street here so why did you built a house?"

Are ya trackin' with me here?

Thanks.

Now....get in out of the heat and relax.

[LightningBG]

Wow, lots of varying opinions here.

Here's my take.

Some no wakes are for safety (shallow, narrow, high traffic, etc)

Some temporary no wakes are for property (high water causing shorelines to erode, levies to break down, docks to come off their poles, wave runners to float up off their lifts. etc.)

It's just the way it is and if the restriction is only for 100 yds from shore and not the whole lake, I think we can probably deal with it.

Think of it as 100yds of prime water that the fisherman can use and the skiers and tubers have to stay out of...

[LightningBG]

I think its a joke because when a barge goes by on the MAIN CHANNEL you know he is gonna make a HUGE wake. Its what barges do. So I have no problem driving by at full speed in my 14 ft boat, because me wake is 1/4 that of a barge or even a large cruiser going 3mph. Ive yet to see a barge stopped by the DNR for creating a large wake in a no wake zone, even though they do it on a daily basis.

You dont want one of those barges slowing down. I've seen them try (because they weren't going to make it to the lock in time to get in) and they ended up crashing into shore. I'm guessing its tough to steer under limited power. Anyways, it was a big debacle.

[Nick Kuhn]

Wow, lots of varying opinions here.

Here's my take.

Some no wakes are for safety (shallow, narrow, high traffic, etc)

Some temporary no wakes are for property (high water causing shorelines to erode, levies to break down, docks to come off their poles, wave runners to float up off their lifts. etc.)

It's just the way it is and if the restriction is only for 100 yds from shore and not the whole lake, I think we can probably deal with it.

Think of it as 100yds of prime water that the fisherman can use and the skiers and tubers have to stay out of...

Exactly. For those of you saying it's just for lake shore owners: well, that eroded property ends up in the lake, and very much to the detriment of the lake.

[RumRiverRat]

chasineyes,

Who said anything about closing down an entire lake?

The original post is talking about a 100 yard from shore no wake zone.

All the other things you mentioned are not even comparable.

[Crm7290]

Skol, the barges really dont have that big of wakes. Honestly have you passed one lately? When we have passed them recently we have not seen as big of a wake as we remember in the past. This may be open to debate but thats my opinion.

Also you do know there is a beach on the main channel right across from the levee. Its a popular beach too. That beach would be washed away more so than it already has plus Im sure it is a safety issue to people on the beach...

Kind of hypocritical to yell at people in your harbor and then to go through a posted no wake area at full speed in your 14 foot boat.

I do agree that those house boats throw up a wake no matter how fast they are going...

[MJBaldwin]

If someones property is close enough to a body of water for a wake to do damage... i think the overall planning of the house being built is the bigger issue.. not the wake or lack there of...

I would agree.Even though it has never been an issue and now is, is not the people on the lakes fault you should have done better at planning the location of your place. At least you got the No Wake Zone out of the DNR.

[LightningBG]

I would agree.Even though it has never been an issue and now is, is not the people on the lakes fault you should have done better at planning the location of your place. At least you got the No Wake Zone out of the DNR.

It's not a matter of the house/cabin itself. Its the yard pouring down into the water. Not real great for the lake either. Could you plan it so it didn't happen? Sure, put some rip-rap in. Oh, but wait, the DNR doesn't allow that either in many cases.

[reinhard1]

that would be interesting to find out. what is the best way to stop shoreline errosion? when i was at a lake property owners meeting there was a person there from the state who stated planting vegetation [he mentioned some different types] would be better than the rocks some owners have put there for that purpose. good luck.

[Nick Kuhn]

reainhard, generally the best way to prevent shoreline erosion is literally to do nothing. Let it overgrow with natural weeds and trees, while you kick back and enjoy a beverage instead of grooming your lake shore.

[reinhard1]

thanks, i dont have lakeshore, just invited to speak at the meeting about the lakes fishing. however on that particular lake some have their shore as you say but most have done the rock thing. it looks nice and it did take a ton of work but you would think over time the water would wear down the soil that supports the rocks unless the owner put some kind of protection on the soil and then put the rocks on top of it. i do agree that vegitation is the best way to go, but those rocks do look good that some people have taken the time to place there. good luck.

[kg2]

reainhard, generally the best way to prevent shoreline erosion is literally to do nothing. Let it overgrow with natural weeds and trees, while you kick back and enjoy a beverage instead of grooming your lake shore.

Great point, Nick. Someone earlier pointed out how they love to see those nicely manicured lawns. I am just the opposite. I would rather see nature! (Or at least a nice buffer zone!)

[cylinder]

Someone earlier pointed out how they love to see those nicely manicured lawns. I am just the opposite. I would rather see nature! (Or at least a nice buffer zone!)

+1

[pushbutton]

that would be interesting to find out. what is the best way to stop shoreline errosion? when i was at a lake property owners meeting there was a person there from the state who stated planting vegetation [he mentioned some different types] would be better than the rocks some owners have put there for that purpose. good luck.

Back in 96 some super rich(ard) guy thought he did not have to follow rules and cleared a ton of vegetation so he could see and utilize his lakeshore better. He also previously essentially filled in a ravine and built his house on it. Needless to say the gazillion dollar home darn near ended up in the lake. I ended up approaching the local County Environmental Services to formulate a plan to try to stop the washouts with only pants. Was met with some skepticism, but they let me try it since the alternative was a web of buried steel beams and countless tons of boulder riprap. I ended up planting hundreds of willow, poplar, birch, and basswood, along with thousands of stoloniferous sumac, silverberry, lilacs, raspberry, sobaria, coralberry, korean bamboo, and pachysandra. 15 years later the house is still there and the shoreline is no longer a ravine.

[itchmesir]

[pushbutton]

I actually showed up on behalf of the home owner; he was not openly skeptical( it saved him a ton of money, in the hundred thousand dollar range), the county was. At the time, the county handbook read rip rap, rip rap, rip rap....the home owner's previous actions, all his money, prestige, cluster cluck scenario, allowed for this. I did not know if it would work either and actually formulated the back up plan as well; but it ultimately ended up being a logical first step, as I presented it, which just happened to work under extreme circumstances. Would this work every time, especially if it continued raining as much as was at the time? Probably not. Regardless, in this situation, it did. Part of my previous scenario was to make a point, so sorry for the writers privilege! The washout was within about 30 ft of the house to where his back patio started caving in. No the house was not in eminent danger, but there was nothing at the time to eventually prevent more erosion. If you are skeptical of the story feel free to contact the Stearns County Environmental Services, the company name which i did the work under was Mischville Restorations Inc., and the owner of the home is Scott May, who still presides on Kreamer lake in St. Joseph. mn.

[pushbutton]

After the affects of a particular libation.....i see not only can I not spell plant with an L....i cant read it with one either