Are you really iinterested in a no wake zone at the 43 bridge?

In light of the recent accident just below 43, I am hearing folks say that we need a no wake zone around the bridge. I can assure you that there will be opposition, but with a concentrated effort we may be able to get that done, and I will be glad to work on it, if more folks will help.
I asked Bobby Cleveland to help, because he has strong connections with the folks who run the Rez, but his response was that he didn't think it was necessary just because of this one accident. He had already presented his case to the bass fishermen, who will definitely have a strong lobby, which I also assume will be against anything that makes them slow down through that area...
Bobby stated, to me, that the no wake zone would probably need to be a mile long in every direction, which I felt was probably an effort to discourage me. I am not trying to burn him down here, but we obviously disagree, and I do plan to push for the no wake zone, because I think that area is extremely dangerous, especially when we have a lot of boats moving slowly or anchored near the channel, and others flying by...
If you support this idea, then we need to get organized and move toward a resolution... Please share your thoughts...

I would support a no wake zone similar to Pelahatchie Bay but not a mile long zone. When I fish on the edge of the river channel I would rather boats come by on plane than to slow to half throttle and throw a sunami of a wake. I know that’s a risk when I fish there. I feel the same about the welfare hole. If you fish close to the channel you know the risk. But under the bridge, some folks tie up or sit very close to the piling. Besides the danger to fishermen, nobody wants there boat, motor, and rods beaten against the bridge.

I think we should be reasonable. I don’t believe we want anyone to start a “NO FISHING UNDER THIS BRIDGE” campaign.
Just my opinion.


Sent from my iPad using Crappie.com Fishing mobile app

Agree with you Clifford. And no wake 1mile either side is overkill and a poison pill.

Roach, I have heard the no fishing under the bridge suggestion to, which I feel is just a threat to make us back down. No wake for 100 yards on each side would be fine with me, and I do understand that a boat on plane can leave less wake than one dropping off and creating a big roller. But somewhere in all of this, there is going to be a solution if we can get enough folks involved...

I don't know what the answer is but I do know that a100 yard from the bridge no wake zone, with as many bass boats that pass here, is gonna make the bridge and the welfare hole practically unfishable, especially on the weekends. I fished there in a 15 ft. John boat for a couple years and have come close to being swamped a few times by the rollers created when the bass boys throttled down to pass by. That's the main reason I bought a pontoon boat. 100 yards out is gonna create constant and almost neverending rollers all over that area. Be careful what you wish for.

Sad to say this...but the “right” person hasn’t been hurt or killed yet. If and when that ever happens is when you will see something quickly done about this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I do think that possibly making the area under the bridge between the two center sets of pilings strictly off limits to fishermen would help greatly .

That may be a solution for the congestion at the bridge, but what about a speed limit too? Trying to come up with some real options...

No wake from the curves should send the wake away from the bridge. 2-300 yards or so should be plenty


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I like BRM's idea of no wake from the curves before the bridge. Man that ought to make for some interesting viewing on bass tourney days....25 or 30 bass boats coming through trying to get ahead of each other in a no wake zone...