View Single Post
Old 08-07-2017, 05:14 PM   #63
paintitredinHC's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 38
Thanks: 30
Thanked 17 Times in 11 Posts
Default For Pete's Sake

Originally Posted by PeterG View Post
One of the interesting things about this thread is that there are some posters who have complained above wakesetters, and some people who have complained about people complaining.

But--unlike other posts where there are complaints about contentious issues--nobody has actually stood up and said I'm a wakesetter, and what I do does not bother others, damage boats, and erode the shoreline.

(I suppose now we'll been inundated, but I'll still think this is a really small number of people causing a significant number of headaches, and the wakesetter drivers know this.)

I am a water sports enthusiast and I am not just complaining about your complaints. I have offered viable solutions that fall on deaf ears for those who simply refuse to understand other perspectives or or lack the ability contextualize their arguments.

I understand your complaint. I appreciate and applaud your effort to bring attention to a topic that should be addressed on a public forum. I support initiatives that limit the negative impact of our activities, but we differ on the means to achieve that goal.

To be clear, I do acknowledge that wake activity does have a negative impact to the lake and homeowners property. And, it would stand to reason that a larger wake generated by a wake boat would exacerbate the problem. However, please consider that there are actions that can be taken to mitigate the problem without prohibitive regulation (as I have outlined above).

I am confident that the large and damaging wakes that you reference are generated by a wake boat that is either making a constant turn (typical of uniformed driver or someone towing a wake-surfer which in some cases requires a constant turn to sustain an appropriate curling wake required to sustain a 'surfable' wave), or a driver traveling closer than 150' from shore. Both problems can be compounded by multiple boats in a single bay or cove that have not coordinated their line.

So now, let's contextualize. I find it is a helpful tool to add perspective. The negative impact I acknowledged above is relative. I suspect that most people on this forum have a boat or home on the lake of some kind. Somewhere along the line, you have rationalized that the pollution created by your boat or the carbon footprint of your house has not negatively impacted our shared resource. I'm sure the Abenaki would beg to differ. Who are you to draw this arbitrary line in the sand? A bit hypocritical perhaps? I don't say this to be provocative, but to add context and for you to consider your argument from a broader perspective.

Speaking of drawing lines in the sand... I have a boat that offers the flexibility demanded of a multi sport enthusiast. The direct drive inboard places the engine mid-ship to evenly distribute weight for an optimal flat water skiing wake. Ballast tanks can be filled to add up to 1,500 pounds of water, and a large center mounted trim tab offers the ability to shape the wake (i.e. ramp vs. lip) for wake boarding. From the laymans perspective, my boat looks like a typical wake boat, but it is actually quite different. Would my boat be outlawed under your regulations? Is it based on how it looks or how much ballast I put in it? What if I just use half of my ballast capacity and fully engage the trim tab? My friend has a Cobalt I/O with factory ballast and a tower. His boat generates a larger wake than mine at 23mph. Uh oh, this might get complicated to enforce....

And for Pete's sake, Wakesetter is a brand within the Malibu line and not a type of boat. I suppose you can bring a horse to water but you can't make them drink.
paintitredinHC is offline   Reply With Quote