(Lake Wedowee Specific)
120 messages
Updated 2/27/2024 9:06:20 AM
Lakes Online Forum
83,645 messages
Updated 5/30/2024 11:45:00 PM
Lakes Online Forum
5,195 messages
Updated 5/31/2024 4:36:53 AM
(Lake Wedowee Specific)
3 messages
Updated 3/3/2021 9:41:57 AM
Lakes Online Forum
4,169 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,261 messages
Updated 5/28/2024 6:31:10 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,976 messages
Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
|
|
|
| Name: |
Maverick
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
Boating Bill Editorial Comment
|
|
Date:
|
4/14/2006 2:18:42 AM
|
After numerous hours of thought, I felt compelled to write the below editorial comments regarding the recent boating bill passed by our legislative bodies.
While you might agree with all my thoughts, please read this post in its entirety with an open mind, prior to posting any rebuttals.
This will be my final post regarding this matter, with the exception of possibly rebutting any rebuttals regarding this post.
I KNOW THIS POST IS LONG, BUT PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE POST PRIOR TO REBUTTING MY COIMENTS.
ALABAMA BOATING BILL EDITORIAL COMMENTS
Does the boating bill improve the safety of and reduce the possibility of Alabama Lakes becoming overcrowded?
In my opinion, the boating bill recently passed by our legislative bodies will not accomplish either of these objectives. All this bill has really accomplished is to it classify and stereotype certain groups of Alabama boaters and therefore, limit or ban certain size boats on 3 Alabama lakes. Based upon the future growth of most all of our state lakes due to population and demographic changes, this stopgap legislation will not preserve our recreational waterways, nor will it contain the future threats. The way to preserve our lakes is to enact reasonable and responsible legislation today, with the thought of future generations to come. As I personally believe nobody within Alabama wants our lakes to become as overcrowded and unsafe as certain Georgia lakes.
So how do you then protect Alabama lakes for future generations to come in terms of the larger boats and over crowdedness from these type vessels?
The way to limit the potential over crowdedness from larger boats is to limit the number of wet slips available to a certain length boat based on the overall acreage of each lake. So, rather than enacting a bill, which our legislators have stereotyped as a group of undesirable larger boats, devise a formula based on the total lake acreage to the number of large boats allowed, which is both logical, justifiable and reasonable.
How would you control the speed of the Cigarette type boats on Alabama Lakes?
The problem with speed on Alabama lakes is not related to a specific type or style of boat, i.e. cigarette type boats, as in my opinion, our legislative bodies again have singled out these groups of boaters. There are numerous makes of boats, which can well exceed 60+ mph, and are not just cigarette type boats and many are less than 26’ 11”. Examples are numerous bass boats, PWC’s, ski boats, runabouts and believe it or not even some pontoon boats. The only way to control the speed on Alabama lakes is to enforce a speed limit.
In order to enforce a speed limit the funds are not available to support additional Marine Patrol Officers, so how do you propose to fund this additional expenditure for officers and equipment?
There are numerous public boat ramps around Alabama lakes which are frequented by thousands of boaters per year per ramp, as with certain National Forests within Alabama, which allow dirt bike and ATV riders on their trails, establish a required honor based launch fee at each public boat launch of $5.00 or so per trailer. Each boater would then complete a ramp usage fee envelope and include their fee within a drop box located at each ramp. The boater would also tear off a voucher stub attached to the envelope and place on their dashboard in order to substantiate the fee has been paid. The citation for any boater found to be in violation of the required honor based launch fee would be cited a $100.00 fine. Additional sources of revenue to fund the Marine Patrol might come in the form of increase in fine revenues or increase in annual boater registration fees, etc.
But even with all the above will there still not be extensive shoreline erosion?
The only way to contain shoreline erosion is to limit the size of the wake in relationship to the distance from the shoreline. So say, if you are within say 50 feet of the shoreline (excluding islands), then a boater would be restricted to idle speed only, etc. etc. I can assure you Alabama lake residents which live within sloughs less than 100’ wide would be more than happy to fund no wake buoys, if they were allowed to do such. Furthermore, these smaller no wake sloughs would then become a safer place for children to swim and play within.
Wake height really has nothing to do with the length of a boat, but rather with the draft and girth (or might be called beam) of the boat. A boats wake is based on the amount of water, which must be displaced to move the draft and girth of the boat through the water, therefore having nothing to do with the length of a boat. Also, there are numerous boats, which have deep drafts, and wide girths, which are less than 30’ 6”. Just look at the larger Sea Ray’s, Cobalt’s, etc.
Do the larger type boats not really increase the rate at which the shorelines erode?
Again, if the restriction on the size of a wake in relation to the distance from the shoreline is not enacted, there are numerous vessels, which have not been banned by the boating bill, which can throw off a rather large wake. Several examples of such vessels are: A wake boat at 12-15 MPH with a full ballast, a bass boat doing 50+ MPH then coming to a complete and abrupt stop near your shoreline, then seeing their fishing hole is already occupied and immediately making a sharp turn at full throttle to get to their next spot, or a PWC cruising your shoreline at 20 MPH with three people aboard, believe it or not such a PWC will throw off about a 2’ tall wake.
There was a proposed amendment to the bill to limit the hours of PWC operations, what do you think about such a provision?
Actually, I have no issue with limiting the hours of operation of certain vessels. However, are PWC’s the only issues, they are not, there are other inconsiderate boaters whom will troll up to your pier or shoreline at say 2:00am in order to not disturb the fishing, then when they are through fishing around your property they will crank up their huge engines and SCREAM off into the darkness. So if you are going to limit PWC operating hours, there needs to be consideration given to all intrusive noise levels around the lake during certain hours, not just PWC’s. As once again our legislators’ through this proposed amendment are doing nothing more than classifying a certain boating group, without giving consideration to all potential noise intrusion sources.
In terms of safety on Alabama lakes, is there a real problem?
The issue of safety on Alabama lakes has very little to do with the length of the boat itself, it has to do with the vessel’s captain. And unfortunately, there are always going to be irresponsible boat operators on our lakes, which have therefore, in my opinion, penalized certain classes of responsible boaters. So should this legislation penalize the responsible boaters which now may be banned from 3 Alabama lakes based on the actions of the minority, the answer is no. However, I do concur there needs to be restrictions placed on all Alabama lakes to restrict speeds, thereby hopefully ensuring our lakes are safe for all types of navigation.
Do you live on an Alabama lake?
We have lived on the main channel of Lake Martin near Wind Creek State Park, for over 2 years, frequented Alabama lakes for over 30 years and have seen numerous variations of boats and wakes over the years. Furthermore, we are by no way affected by the boating bill, however, I feel, the need to voice my opinions, as this bill has accomplished nothing more than to classify certain boaters, thereby restricting or banning their boats from 3 Alabama lakes, rather than focusing on the real problem, the irresponsible vessel operators.
Closing Comments
I am greatly in favor of restrictions being placed on all
|
| Name: |
Carnac
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Boating Bill Editorial Comment
|
|
Date:
|
4/14/2006 5:02:41 AM
|
That was a very thoughtful editorial and I have to admit that I agree with most of its content. My major disagreement is that I believe that this bill will result in increased safety. For all practical puposes there will be no meaningful measureables because so much depends on the proficiency, experience, and intent of the captain of a vessel. Regardless of boat length. Whether there is a law or not there will be eventual overcrowding. We can't stop that but we can slow the pace of overcrowding. We can also reduce the potential for accidents, injuries, and death.
What you cigarette boat types can't grasp, or more accurately refuse to grasp, is that there is a widely shared belief that the extreme high speeds (100 mph and more) we've seen all of you run from time to time is going to become a huge problem for some of our unfortunate members. We don't know how proficient you are or how concerned you are with our well being. We only know that there is a greatly reduced amount of reaction time.
I've assisted in piloting large boats through America's river systems. While we were constantly on the lookout for barges, flotsam, and all sizes of pleasure craft there were times when several of us on the bridge sometimes didn't immediately recognize the proximity of small boats. Because we always erred on the side of extreme caution (reduced speeds) we never had a near miss but there were some times when our wake caused significant anxiety for those poor folks. My point here is that we are all human and subject to some distraction from time to time. That, my friend, is when most accidents happen. Extreme high speeds coupled with the possibility of momentary distraction will, eventually, equal disaster.
The bill had its roots in property development on Lake Harris but most of us immediately recognized the opportunities that a law banning certain types of boats would bring. And we jumped on it like a duck on a junebug. We came out in great numbers to e-mail and phone our legislators urging their support of the bill. We weren't going to be the silent majority on this issue.
One of the posters on this forum speculated whether the high speed crowd considered the possibility that they have brought this upon themselves. I think he's on to something but I'm certain that y'all won't see it that way.
I hate that things have come to this but Cigarette boats are our sacrificial anode.
|
| Name: |
LifeTime Laker
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Boating Bill Editorial Comment
|
|
Date:
|
4/14/2006 8:09:35 AM
|
My only argument would be that wave action on shoreline has no relation to proximety to shoreline. The wave may not be visible, but it's action is there, none the less. Recent studies show that a wave in water is the closest thing to perpetual motion that can be found on earth. Wave action lasts until it is broken up by some external force. Seawalls richochet waves back into the body of water. Natural sloping shoreline will dissapate the energy of the wave, but will increase erosion. That is one reason that the best seawall on 'big water' is sloping rip rap.
I have watched the arguments back and forth on the forum, but have not seen anyone bring up this point. So limiting the proximity of wakes to shoreline may appear to have a significant impact on erosion, it really does not. It will however, limit damage and a effect on the surface i.e.- boats tied to piers. But on the other hand, waves being inherent in bodies of water, each boat owner HAS to be responsible for securing thier own watercraft in a manner to prevent damage from 'wave action'. As has been pointed out on the forum, a windy day can produce very large waves on the 'big water'.
I was brought up to believe that it was a law there be no wake within 100 feet of any structure or shoreline. My Dad taught me this growing up. It turns out that it is not a law, but simple courtesy he was teaching me. (I learned this a few years back when another forum member challenged me on the "law" aspect of this)
Bottom line Mav, I enjoyed the editorial. It brought up some points that I had not considered, and gave me food for thought. I have not at this time changed my position on the issue, but it was nice to see many points brought up without the 'back and forth bickering' that has ruled on the forum of late.
I am not an engineer, but I do watch Discovery Channell.
|
| Name: |
Osms
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Boating Bill Editorial Comment
|
|
Date:
|
4/14/2006 8:11:53 AM
|
Great post Carnac. Maverick's proposal has a basic flaw. His law would require thousands of Marine Police to patrol the waters 24/7. The anti-law group probably would like this law because they know the State could not fund such an army of troops.
Can you imagine ticketing a boater because his wake was 2'2" instead of the 1'8" allowed by Maverick's law. The wake is gone so how do you measure it?
I feel certain the legislature considered the factors the Maverick raised, but they all require more Police. The way the bill is written does not require more Police, judges, court rooms, etc.
|
| Name: |
AnchorbayDon
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Boating Bill Editorial Comment
|
|
Date:
|
4/14/2006 9:22:09 AM
|
In my opinion, this thread contains the best dialogue that has taken place regarding the issues! If such an open and candid discussion were held by boaters familiar with the issues as you guys are - before the legislation were drafted, we would end up effective, reasonable, and enforceable laws.
In my discussions with 40-50 senators and representatives about the bill, I did not speak to a single one who admitted to being a boater (or even a Lake Martin user). Yet these people 'represented' us in crafting, negotiating and passing a bill about boating.
Perhaps on the next go-round (as I believe will surely occur), someone (like the Governor) will have the forethought to get some affected and experienced boaters to logically and unemotionally discuss the real issues at hand and to come up with proposed legislation that addresses the real issues. I nominate you guys!
|
| Name: |
luvlake
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Boating Bill Editorial Comment
|
|
Date:
|
4/14/2006 10:47:36 AM
|
First time post. Please include the fact that the boats above 26'11 such as 27' Fountains, that are outright banned need to be grandfathered just as the 30'6" boats. This bill is not fair any way you look at it.
|
| Name: |
Maverick
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Boating Bill Editorial Comment
|
|
Date:
|
4/14/2006 12:22:15 PM
|
While I agree with the vast majority of your points the problem is that there are plenty of sub 26' 11 boats which can well exceed 100+ mphs.
There are actually numerous bass boats which can exceed 70+ mph.
What I am trying to get across is the size of the boat does not matter, and the only way to control speed is through limitations, as on our national highways, etc.
So this legislation really has not accomplished what it appears they where trying to do, which is reduce speed on our lakes. As I agree speed needs to be reduced, but the problem still remains the irresponsible vessel operators with the sub 26' 11" 100+ mph boat.
Again, just my thoughts on the matter and appreciate your feedback to the editorial.
|
| Name: |
Maverick
-
|
|
| Subject: |
OSMS
|
|
Date:
|
4/14/2006 12:44:32 PM
|
Actually Lake Tuscalossa has a speed limit of 55 MPH and is enforced by their Marine Patrol using radar from what I am told.
With regards to wake, I am not stating you can enforce this, I am saying there needs to sometype of restrictions if shoreline erosion can ever be stabilized to some extent.
And yes believe it or not the wake size could in fact be enforced, ever get a ticket in a no wakes zone, as I have nto, but have seen some that have.
Also see my previous post regarding the 26; 11" 100+ mph boats.
Thanks for your feedback, it is appreciated.
|
| Name: |
Maverick
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Boating Bill Editorial Comment
|
|
Date:
|
4/14/2006 12:45:45 PM
|
Very good point LifeTime Laker, never thought about that and your logic makes sense.
|
| Name: |
Maverick
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Boating Bill Editorial Comment
|
|
Date:
|
4/14/2006 12:48:44 PM
|
So Don I do have your vote for Governor?
Just thought all needed to be said and see if we could all come to some reasonable terms, rather than rushing to judgement.
Later
|
| Name: |
Osms
-
|
|
| Subject: |
response to Maverick 2d
|
|
Date:
|
4/14/2006 1:16:36 PM
|
|
| Name: |
Osms
-
|
|
| Subject: |
response to Maverick 2d
|
|
Date:
|
4/14/2006 1:25:29 PM
|
Dang it--when you mistakenly hit the enter key at the end of the subject line it posts your message. Sorry. The bill is far from perfect, but I think the authors were trying to get maximum effectiveness without spending any more state money on Patrols
I've agreed all along that the problem is the operator and will be regardless of this law or any others. But you have to control what you can control with the tools you have available. Even Catboat and I agreed that an enforced speed limit is the answer to most of citizen's concerns.
The unfortunate issue is the size cutoff. You gotta put it somewhere and it's always gonna catch a guy who's just over the limit. Don't accept that a 27 Fountain is 27 feet long--most manufacturers cheat to make the buyer think they've bought a bigger boat.
|
| Name: |
WSMS
-
|
|
| Subject: |
A couple of questions...
|
|
Date:
|
4/14/2006 1:49:38 PM
|
How big is Lake Tuscaloosa? I'm guessing under 6,000 acres, which would mean it has about one-sixth the acrage of Lake Martin. Which means, of course, that for Lake Martin to be equally served by the Marine Police, it would need six times the number of officers.
Does Lake Martin have six officers period, never mind six for every one that patrols Lake Tuscaloosa?
Yours is a good idea in theory; unfortunately, Lake Martin falls short in the categories of manpower, and patrol boats. If we ever get enough WPs on the lake to adequately enforce those rules, I'd be all for it. But until that happens, your idea-- however great it is-- just isn't feasible.
Another question-- when did this bill become all about speed? Weren't we told for a while that it was for greedy rich people who wanted to keep poor cruiser-owners off the lake? And then weren't we told that it was for big developers, who wanted to keep unsightly houseboats off the lake? When did it become all about speed? I missed that memo.
|
| Name: |
Maverick
-
|
|
| Subject: |
WSMS
|
|
Date:
|
4/14/2006 2:13:30 PM
|
WSMS:
Did you read my editorial comments on the Marine Patrol funding as I agree there is not adequate funding in place today to enforce such a law, however here are some ideas to subsidize our appreciated Marine Officers. Do you have any other ideas which I may haved missed?
In order to enforce a speed limit the funds are not available to support additional Marine Patrol Officers, so how do you propose to fund this additional expenditure for officers and equipment?
There are numerous public boat ramps around Alabama lakes which are frequented by thousands of boaters per year per ramp, as with certain National Forests within Alabama, which allow dirt bike and ATV riders on their trails, establish a required honor based launch fee at each public boat launch of $5.00 or so per trailer. Each boater would then complete a ramp usage fee envelope and include their fee within a drop box located at each ramp. The boater would also tear off a voucher stub attached to the envelope and place on their dashboard in order to substantiate the fee has been paid. The citation for any boater found to be in violation of the required honor based launch fee would be cited a $100.00 fine. Additional sources of revenue to fund the Marine Patrol might come in the form of increase in fine revenues or increase in annual boater registration fees, etc.
With regards to greed I am not going there - what is at issue is the bill as passed by out legislative bodies really accomplishing anything other than stereotyping certain boaters. Just in case you did not read my clsoing comments, here they are as well as I am in fact in favor of restrictions being placed on Alabama lakes.
I am greatly in favor of restrictions being placed on all Alabama lakes to preserve our cherished lakes and shorelines, enhance their safety and ensure our lakes are never over crowded today or in the future. However, the boating bill, in my opinion, does not correct the real problem through the stereotyping of certain groups of Alabama boaters, as the primary issue still is and will always remain the irresponsible boat operators, not the responsible captain, unless future legislation is enacted.
|
| Name: |
Maverick
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Thanks OSMS
|
|
Date:
|
4/14/2006 2:17:13 PM
|
What I am trying to get to thorugh the editorial is I think we might be able to agree on one thing and that is there needs to be restrictions placed on our lakes.
So if we want such, lets ensure future legislation is well thougt out, just and fair to all Alabama boaters not just certain classes of boaters.
Is this a fair statement?
|
| Name: |
Osms
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Thanks OSMS
|
|
Date:
|
4/14/2006 4:00:21 PM
|
That is a fair statement, but I've only seen a response from a few--you and Cat.
|
| Name: |
Carnac
-
|
|
| Subject: |
It isn't the end
|
|
Date:
|
4/14/2006 5:57:10 PM
|
It isn't even the end of the beginnning. We have to start somewhere in banning excess high speed from the lake. You well intentioned gentlemen, and ladies, of the cigarette boat ilk are the low hanging fruit. So are houseboats. The slightly higher fruit are the super fast sub 26' 11" group. When you're hungry you go for the easy stuff first.
Bass boats are unlikely to ever be banned from this lake. Do you have any idea how much money gets pumped into the local economies from the bass tournaments here on Lake Martin? It would blow your mind.
Mav, I don't like where they have drawn the line identifying boat length and power to be banned. That was bill sausage. If this bill becomes law it is certain to be tweaked and retweaked. But this is a good start for us Save Lake Martin types. We'll reach for the higher hanging fruit next.
Wakes and erosion caused by boat traffic? Certainly, but there is more damage to the shoreline and property from a single severe thunderstorn than the seasonal accumulation from all of the boats on the lake. I don't like big wakes any more than anybody else. But it's a red herring issue when mentioned concerning banning some boats.
|
| Name: |
Maverick
-
|
|
| Subject: |
It isn't the end
|
|
Date:
|
4/14/2006 7:30:44 PM
|
Carnac:
You stated "Mav, I don't like where they have drawn the line identifying boat length and power to be banned. That was bill sausage. "
So you would somewhat agree, certain class of boaters may have been stereotyped by the present boating bill, is this an accurate statement based on your post?
I agree with you, the bass tournaments are important to the economy and I actually enjoy watching these boats zip up and down the lake on tournament weekend. However, how can you allow a bass boat, even in not in a tournament, that will go 80+ mphs that is say 22' long, then ban other boats sub 27' 11" that will also run 80+ mph's? Just looking for your thought, is this really fair?
By any chance did you read the part of the editorial regarding the number of larger boats being restricted on AL lakes based on sometype of formula based on a lakes overall acerage? Your thoughts on such a formula being enacted in a future law?
With regards to wake and erosion, I probably agree with your comment "there is more damage to the shorelines and property from a single severe thunderstorm ...." So my question is, then why the ban on boats over 30' 6" why not something like 40' or something based on current wet slip sizes on Lake Martin in order to suport our marinas. Do not get me wrong the last thing I want on Lake Martin is 55' + boat or a 100' Houseboats, etc. Your thoughts on this matter?
Carnac - Thanks for your previous post, just trying to hone in on your thoughts on these matters.
|
| Name: |
Osms
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I think I heard on ch. 12....
|
|
Date:
|
4/14/2006 7:44:47 PM
|
that the governor had signed the boating bill into law. I was passing by the TV during news so don't hold me to this.
|
| Name: |
BoatsRFun
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I think I heard on ch. 12....
|
|
Date:
|
4/14/2006 9:30:39 PM
|
I think he did sign the bill, very sad!!!
|
| Name: |
eli
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Boating Bill Editorial Comment
|
|
Date:
|
4/14/2006 11:04:44 PM
|
All I can say, Mav, is, well put. In essence, all it takes is one bad apple to spoil the whole bunch. It is a real shame. All it takes is responsible, considerate, operation by all boaters. Unfortunately, all boaters are not sensible. I wish you could see our lake. Here in IN there are no limitations or restrictions. Our lake is one tenth the size of Lake Martin and on a Sat. or Sun. afterternoon, there are as many, and as large boats on our lake as there are on L. Martin.. We live on an idle zone and do not even venture ino the high speed zone. Too scary. Too stupid.
|
| Name: |
eli
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Boating Bill Editorial Comment
|
|
Date:
|
4/14/2006 11:21:19 PM
|
In agreement with Lifetime Laker, we do observe (not 100), but 200 feet , no wake near shoreline or structures. We do have another restriction as to idle zone - shall be observed after dusk on entire lake. Had a very sad tragedy when this was not observed by a ski boat - collided with an anchored fishing boat. We are amazed that this is not a limitation on L. Martin
|
| Name: |
Carnac
-
|
|
| Subject: |
That's accurate
|
|
Date:
|
4/15/2006 8:14:37 AM
|
Yes, the bill discriminates against certain classes of boats. No, it isn't fair. I'm not trying to be a smarta$$ when I say life isn't fair. Someone is going to be negatively affected no matter where the line is drawn concerning length and power of a boat. I'm sure that you would agree that if the law passed to ban boats longer than 39 feet we'd see a post from an owner of a 40 footer complaining about the arbitrary selection of that length.
Mav, I said that I agreed with most of your editorial comments and I do. We can expect the next step to be taken will be to put a speed limit into law. Perhaps that is what they should have done in the first place. The Marine Police will have as much trouble enforcing a speed limit law as they will have in trying to determine if the boat they just saw on the lake is a banned boat. The boat ban bill is now law. We've got what we've got.
|
| Name: |
Maverick
-
|
|
| Subject: |
WSMS
|
|
Date:
|
4/15/2006 12:14:22 PM
|
Thanks for your feedback, it is apprecaited and I concur.
Now lets all work together to ensure any future legislation is reasonable, just and fair to all.
And if we all truly believe there were unjusts in the current bill, in terms of stereotyping certain classes of boaters, we can always try to right the wrong in future legistlation.
Again, thank you for your comments.
|
| Name: |
Maverick
-
|
|
| Subject: |
WSMS - Your Response ???
|
|
Date:
|
4/15/2006 12:15:38 PM
|
To my above post, any comments or thoughts would be appreciated.
|
| Name: |
Maverick
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Sorry Meant Carnac Above
|
|
Date:
|
4/15/2006 12:17:25 PM
|
|
there have been several others. I can only assume that when you read the post of someone who disagrees with your thoughts, your blood pressure rises to a point that causes you to ignore the things you actually agree with.
|
| Name: |
WSMS
-
|
|
| Subject: |
WSMS - Your Response ???
|
|
Date:
|
4/17/2006 7:30:52 PM
|
Yes, I read your "editorial;" why would I respond to it without reading it?
As for your subsidy suggestions... it's a start. I'm just not sure that there is enough ramp usage on Lake Martin to underwrite the additional funds needed to pay several new Marine Police.
Statewide, yes, there would probably be enough. But do you really think it's fair for users of Smith Lake, Logan Martin, Lake Mitchell, etc., etc., to pay for our officers? Sure, we might need them more than anyone else right now, but that could change; even if we always needed more, over time every lake is going to need more officers.
So while your idea would be a good start, that's all it is-- a start. And until there is also a finish, it's not feasible.
|
|
|
New Post
Search
Lake Wedowee Topics Forum
Reply
»
Alabama Lakes
»
Lake Wedowee
Login
|
Home
