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...

Just curious, what was the accident?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

DeltaBull, they will adjust to the change...

RustyJig... http://www.crappie.com/crappie/off-t...oat-crash-rez/

I really don't know the answer but I know one other thing that would help(if they do not do a "no wake zone" is if they had one way's through bridge. Like the 3 on right are for going down river and if your going up river use the 3 on the right on other side of bridge. Don't know if they need to be painted green for enter here and red for do not enter...but it would help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by macpappy

I really don't know the answer but I know one other thing that would help(if they do not do a "no wake zone" is if they had one way's through bridge. Like the 3 on right are for going down river and if your going up river use the 3 on the right on other side of bridge. Don't know if they need to be painted green for enter here and red for do not enter...but it would help.

---

Wouldn't that just about kill fishing under the bridge, could force a traveling boat to one side where all the fishermen are while no one is on the other side

I think making two separate lanes might be a good idea... Thanks.. Lots to think about with all of these good suggestions...

I don't like expressing an issue with some in in authority without offering a solution. If we are going to plead a case for change, I would really like to have a great solution that is an easy pitch!

I think that one lane each way would be enough. Between the three center pilings for boat traffic. Rarely do you see fisherman catching many fish right in the center of the river channel. (Only when all the outer pilings are covered up). You get there late then maybe you don't get to tie up under the bridge.....then get up earlier !

I have to believe that anyone blocking the way under the bridge would be about to receive a Darwin award...

That used to be a no wake zone, check the books.

Oh really? That is very interesting... Someone has played this hand before...

I love that area but I don't fish there any more,even though it's the closest by far. It's the only place I've ever fished that I would just as soon pay the court cost and associated fines that come with being charged with assault and battery, but yeah it definitely needs to be no wake thru there.

Sent from my SM-J327R7 using Tapatalk

If you are making rollers in a no wake zone you are going too fast

Sent from my SM-J327R7 using Tapatalk

Never fished there but seems to me if they have staffing to police those not abiding by a no wake zone if added, they should be able to police those going too fast and unsafe. Point being, we have speed limit signs but 99% of people speed anyway. Maybe proactively expect the worst from the next guy and plan accordingly. Reality of the world is that a small % makes it harder on the majority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 27458

Never fished there but seems to me if they have staffing to police those not abiding by a no wake zone if added, they should be able to police those going too fast and unsafe. Point being, we have speed limit signs but 99% of people speed anyway. Maybe proactively expect the worst from the next guy and plan accordingly. Reality of the world is that a small % makes it harder on the majority.

---

Only a couple folks around to enforce any such laws. And there is no such thing as a speed limit on these waters. If you can buy the horse power, you can run it wide open throttle. Bunch of bass tourneys launch from near there and don't want to be hindered. I've been at the marina before blast offs and couldn't find a spot to tie my rig up so I could park. The common sense for them to do is all idle away from the marina area out near the bridge and leave in a timely manner from there. They did install and enforce no wake zones up River near certain points. Mostly around boat ramps and the "party" sandbars. This was done after several folks were hurt and killed. Kinda strange how certain points are "off-limits" to restrictive regulations


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Only fished Barnett three times during the spring camp last year, that was my biggest issue I saw is the ratio of bass fishermen to crappie fishermen, seen some dummy's running the hairpin channel curves at 60 mph plus at dusk! I know we all gripe about the sport growing so fast and such, but at least when I spot a fella crappie fishermen I can say to myself well there is a person with some good sense, pleasure boaters are a nuisance and bass fishermen are a menace for the most part :biggrin

I said up front that the bass fishermen would be a strong lobby. We are outnumbered, but we do have a voice. We may not receive a positive response, but saying nothing is not something I would be proud of...

My opinion only here but it's the approach is wrong. It's not about Bass fisherman,plenty of crappie maniacs fishing in decked out bass rigs, safety and well being of all should be the objective. Respect and concern for the well being of others - when society can't do it, well, thats when the gubment steps in to show us how to treat one another (sure)

Sent from my SM-J327R7 using Tapatalk

I'm not singling out the bass fisherman by any means, but they will be the ones who will fight against changes, I promise... There is no denying that other groups also have folks who need to learn some respect...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CliffordN

I said up front that the bass fishermen would be a strong lobby. We are outnumbered, but we do have a voice. We may not receive a positive response, but saying nothing is not something I would be proud of...

---

i'll support ya 100%. 300ft each side of the bridge is reasonable.

I've got some good connections at PRV and they said it ain't gonna happen. that was a couple years back though. I do their survey work

I think that it would be the safe alternative but I can second what DonDon said. I know a few of the movers and shakers up there and they have expressed much doubt that it would ever go back to a no wake zone.

I have an inner conflict on the issue I guess. On one hand, we should operate our boats in a safe manner and obey the laws. I make a habit of giving groups of fisherman a slow bell wherever I encounter them in the channel. On the other hand though, if you don’t want your boat beat up then it seems logical not to tie off to a concrete pillar in a marked navigation channel where you know boats are going to be zipping around.

At the end of the day, we are all responsible for our wakes and any damage they cause. If people were to report each of these incidents then there might be enough of a paper trail to make a difference. I don’t know the statistics but I think there have only been less than a few collisions there and no resulting deaths in the last decade. That puts it much lower on the list than a lot of other areas on the lake.


Sent from my iPhone using Crappie.com Fishing mobile app

Yeah you right ,MMA

Sent from my SM-J327R7 using Tapatalk

It should be a no wake zone.. just like bay bridge... but like feesh said.. it won’t happen until someone gets killed.. they only worry about actions to prevent accidents after someone gets killed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dee F

It should be a no wake zone.. just like bay bridge... but like feesh said.. it won’t happen until someone gets killed.. they only worry about actions to prevent accidents after someone gets killed.

---

That’s exactly right. Let’s be reactive....wait til something bad happens and then we get a knee jerk reaction and screw the whole deal up for everybody.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Logic should tell you that if a bridge on one end of a lake is a no wake zone, a similar bridge on the opposite end of that same lake with 10 times the boat traffic should also be a no wake zone. Logic is not considered in this equation. It's all about who has the most pull and influence on the powers that be. The tourneys love to fire out of Tommy's Trading Post and it's WOT from there on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Another thing that played a role in the last accident is your larger tournaments get a permit or pay a launch fee.. the smaller tournaments like club tournaments don’t. Then the smaller club tournament uses a different ramp to beat the crowd.. then at daylight you got boats headed down the lake and up the lake.. towards each other.. with everyone trying to beat the other one to a spot.
If everyone had to be permitted equally, then atleast it would be known that they’ll be blast offs in different directions.
A lot of people lose respect along with common sense when they crank their boats..
Just pole a group of folks about how they like their boat.. guarantee you the majority will tell you how fast it goes right off the bat!
Barnett is by far the worst lake I’ve ever seen as far as boaters having zero respect for others.

Fortunately I get to fish during the week days a lot of times and can avoid the weekend traffic

It is my understanding that all tournaments are required to keep a log of entries, and pay a $2 fee for each boat....