This map from a Salem town document shows the placement of slow-no wake buoys in the west bay of Hooker Lake sought by some lakeshore residents.
An effort by four lakeshore residents to have slow-no wake buoys placed in the western bay of that lake will not be acted on further by the Salem Town Board after action at a special Town Board meeting Monday.
Board members voted 3 to 1 with one abstaining to not pursue an application with the state to place the buoys. Supervisor Dennis Faber voted against the motion and Supervisor Mike Culat abstained, but did state a statutory reason for abstaining.
In an earlier meeting the board had approved by a 3-2 vote applying for buoys as requested by three residents who live on Hooker Lake.
But Department of Natural Resources officials said the request was doomed at the state level because it was being made by individuals and that it was for erosion control. The DNR would have to approve any such buoy placement.
The board faced two options for action, explained town administrator Patrick Casey. The board could instruct town staff to research the placements of the buoys and then make application for them as the town or do nothing.
The reason for requesting the buoys by all but one of the residents seeking them was erosion control. DNR officials told town officials that buoys are only placed for public safety. Salem Public Safety Officer David Shortess said it would be difficult to build a case that the west bay under current regulation and marking is unsafe.
After about 4o minutes of discussion, Supervisor Dan Campion moved to reconsider the earlier vote on the buoys. That reconsideration passed unanimously. The board then voted in favor of not applying for the buoys.
The board then moved to considering changing the shoreline limit for no wake from 200 feet to 100 feet on all of Hooker Lake. Culat motioned to make the change but that motion died from lack of a second.
Note: The board also changed slow-no-wake hours on Hooker Lake, but I need to follow up on some of those facts before I report it. Check back. — DH
pathetic representation.
Kmiec and Tesar must ski close to shore.
Hooker gets no buoys, yet Camp Lake has 24.
Why do these people keep getting elected?
The Camp and Center Rehabilitation District requested the buoys as part of their safety and rehab efforts. Their are a total of 16 SNW buoys that were done in two applications across two different town boards led by two different Chairs. They in no way produce a negative impact on the lake. Passive recreation occurs on the shoreside of the markers and high speed on the lakeside. Most of the cost of the buoys was recovered through state monies. Any opposition to the waterway markers exposes the violators of the Towns well established ordinance of 200 feet from shore. The States minimum requirement is 100 feet off of piers and swim rafts. Essentially the same setback.
The buoys in Camp Lake are clutter and often moved and seldom relocated.
If they were so important to expose people, then they’d be in every lake in the town or state. to mark the 100/200 ft mark. They are clutter. And the money ‘you’ “recover”? That comes from our taxes. It is not a gift as you imply. CCLRD’s comment illustrates lack of continuity in the town and favoritism and perhaps bias.
“Safety and rehab” you say? Isnt that exactly what some families are asking for on Hooker Lake? Yes, that iw what they are asking for! Yet, no buoys per this Town Board – the one that was elected to represent these folks!
Near shore boating increases user conflicts and possibility of accidents
Written by Bill Engfer, former WDNR Boating Safety Chief. This press release was written when the 200′ PWC rule went into effect.
MADISON — Operating motorboats away from shorelines of lakes can help prevent accidents and reduce conflicts with other lake users and property owners, state boating safety experts say.
“The closer you are to shore, the more congested the waters are with other boats and swimmers, and the greater your likelihood of having a near-miss or an accident,” says Bill Engfer, boating law administrator for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
For that reason, and to reduce conflicts with lakeshore property owners, and with anglers and canoeists who are fishing or paddling near the shore, Engfer recommends boaters venture farther out into a lake.
“We’ve got a growing number of boaters out on the water, but everybody seems to like to stay in close to shore,” Engfer says. “By moving out farther into the lake, you get away from the congestion and have more room to maneuver safely.”
Wisconsin has 543,034 registered motorized boats and sailboats and attracts another estimated 300,000 boats from out of state. In addition, Wisconsin residents own an estimated 326,000 canoes, kayaks and other nonmotorized boats.
IMPACTS OF MOTORIZED
WATERCRAFT ON THE
LAKE ENVIRONMENT
Based on research by Tim Asplund, WDNR Limnologist
Excerpts from report:
While the effects of boats on aquatic
systems are complex and depend on a
number of factors, a few general observations
can be made:
First, the physical effects of
propeller, waves, and turbulence appear
to be more of an issue than engine fuel
discharge. Water clarity, aquatic plant
disturbance, and shoreline erosion are
all serious issues that can be accelerated
by boat traffic.
Second, most of the impacts of
boats are felt directly in shallow waters
(less than 10 feet deep) and along the
shoreline.
Third, these effects can have repercussions for other features of the
aquatic ecosystem, including the fish
and wildlife community and nutrient status.
These observations all indicate
that the most important area of a lake
to protect is the shallow water, near shore
habitat known as the littoral zone.
Boats that operate in deep waters
with large surface areas are not likely to
be impacting the aquatic ecosystem.
What can we do?
1. Establish No-Wake Zones.
Given that most impacts of boats are
exhibited in shallow-water, near-shore
areas, protecting these areas with no wake zones would be the most effective
way of reducing impacts. No-wake
zones have a dual benefit of both slowing
boats down and directing traffic
elsewhere. Extending a no-wake zone
to 200 or even 300 feet has the most
potential to protect the littoral zone
and help reduce shoreline erosion.
“What can we do?
1. Establish No-Wake Zones. Given that most impacts of boats are exhibited in shallow-water, near-shore areas, protecting these areas with no wake zones would be the most effective way of reducing impacts. No-wake zones have a dual benefit of both slowing boats down and directing traffic elsewhere. Extending a no-wake zone to 200 or even 300 feet has the most potential to protect the littoral zone and help reduce shoreline erosion.”
But it appears that the town board isnt interested – in either protecting the people or the lake or the shoreline.