CONTINUOUSWAVE

This is an article from a weekly local area paper, something one might not even hear about except for the papers excellent local coverage.

The boat in question is a 35' JC, downeast style. Nearly flat bottom with a deep keel.
The "criminal charge" is interesting.
I have been passing this dock for over 20 years and find it surprising it was damaged by a single boat's alleged wake.
Our spring and fall high tides have enough additional water that my prior dock required twice a year reattachment of the gangway to the bulk head.


Boro receives settlement in Marina damage incident

By Boater violated low wake restriction, damaged fuel dock

BELMAR — The borough received a settlement of nearly $7,000 after a boater violated the marina’s wake restriction and damaged the fuel dock.

Approximately three months ago, a boat owned by Fish Stix Sportfishing, LLC. sailed too quickly through the Belmar Marina, violating the borough’s low wake requirement, according to Borough Administrator Colleen Connolly, who could not provide the name of the boater.

The wake damaged the marina’s fuel dock, causing the gangway to sit crookedly, she explained.

After identifying the boater on security cameras, the borough brought criminal charges against them.

The company settled, Ms. Connolly said, paying the borough $6,800 in damages.

The dock was immediately repaired following the incident and the settlement will reimburse the borough, Ms. Connolly said.

Captain Kris Black, owner of Fish Stix Sportfishing — a charter boat company based in Belmar — disputed that his boat caused enough wake to damage the dock, but agreed to pay the settlement through his insurance company.

“They kind of just blamed it on us,” he said. “It was a high tide, it was an incoming tide ... we were making a little bit of a wake, probably nothing that would cause damage.”

I can see that happening. Big boat, against an incoming moon tide, in a hurry but can't plane so it "mushes" along causing a huge wake. My experience is that the bigger the boat, the less concerned the operator is about what mayhem his wake is causing. What got my attention is that someone was actually identified and fined for causing damage- very rare.

Oldslowandugly wrote:I can see that happening. Big boat, against an incoming moon tide, in a hurry but can't plane so it "mushes" along causing a huge wake. My experience is that the bigger the boat, the less concerned the operator is about what mayhem his wake is causing. What got my attention is that someone was actually identified and fined for causing damage- very rare.

Ever see a 35 JC running?

Big boat - little boat, does it really matter?
Yesterday I was in my big boat, the 21 Outrage. I just happened to have had some numbskull in a little boat, a 17 Montauk pass me, throwing a fairly large wake for a small boat, pass me on the right - while I was going through a bridge opening!

There are too many poorly qualified boat operators on our waters. I see so many boats plowing through "no wake" that it's almost laughable. They seem not to realize they are burning a lot more fuel to plow than they would to simply go through the zones at idle or high idle. For small boats most would create less wake at WOT than when plowing.

Larger vessels sometimes need to maintain a little more speed that appears necessary in order to maintain steerage control. Some large boats create a lot of wake even at idle speeds. I've been behind some that shift in and out of gear to keep the speed down but they are in the minority.

In my experience it's really the smaller boats of 35 feet or less that are the most troublesome. Perhaps because there are so much more of them than larger boats.

"Ever see a 35 JC running?" No, or if I have I wouldn't know the brand. But around me there are party boats, work boats, commercial fishing boats, huge mega-yachts, tiny skiffs, row boats, you name it. Most are operated properly, many are not. In fact, a well designed hull will throw little wake when planing. It's when they are "mushing" along, wasting fuel and trying to climb out of the water that the damaging wakes are produced. The answer is obvious- get up on plane, or slow down to displacement speed. Few do. 5 mph is the posted no-wake speed just about everywhere. It is painfully slow and most operators feel as long as they are not up on plane, that's good enough. And that "almost on plane" attitude is when a damaging wake is produced. So, yeah, if the marina has a film of a boat going past producing a huge wake, and damage was done, pay the price. Obviously the authorities felt the same.

In the very end, every boater is responsible for his OWN wake and any damages it were to cause.

I have seen many NO WAKE signs posted that are of dubious authority, possibly erected by some shoreline property owner.

As for the claim of a regulation that specifically states a small recreational boat (less than, say, 40-feet in length) is responsible for damage caused by its wake, please cite the federal regulations that provide for this.

Every boat underway creates some wake. You really cannot propel a boat with "no wake." How large can a boat's wake be in a no-wake zone?

Perhaps a better control is a limit on speed.

jimh wrote:I have seen many NO WAKE signs posted that are of dubious authority,

I suppose you could add dubious government authority. Our Local USCG placed a large no wake sign on the Manasquan inlet, NJ years ago.
The sign had no legal backing or government authorized code and eventually was removed. But, for thousands of boaters, the sign was heeded many times.

By and large the sign was grossly ignored by many of the commercial boats, as they knew there was no legal standing behind it.

In New Jersey all no wake buoys require a NJ State Police authorization to be placed. Of course that does not stop many private waterfront owners from placing their own no wake buoys. And to be semi out in the open, I might know a boater that had a no wake buoy placed just outside of the marina entrance he was in.

My main purpose for posting the above article had to do with a boater actually getting called out on an alleged wake, and paying huge fine.

No doubt the town went after the boater as hard as they did because he was a commercial operator. But, just about every commercial boat that transits that river could have been the culprit as well.

And then there the dozens of small outboard powered rental 'jon boats' that fly up and down the river, many with limited experienced operators.

porthole wrote:I suppose you could add dubious government authority.

Yes. In the lower Detroit River there is a municipality that has an ordinance that prohibits the creation of a boat wake within 1,000-feet of its shoreline. This is quite funny because if you go out 1,000-feet from the shoreline of that little town you are in the middle of a major ship channel. However, I suspect that the marine division of their police force probably writes some tickets citing that ordinance. I avoid that stretch of the river whenever possible.