Jayhad Posted January 1, 2014 Posted January 1, 2014 so let's get 2014 started with a hot topic... Jetboats. Does anyone know what the "no motorboat" bylaw fine (in $$$) is on the Bow river above 22X? From what I have been able to research the Feds deemed the Bow as a navigatable water way and the Feds should have the upper hand over the City in regards to the using the waterway, but of course I'm not a lawyer. I know some of you will spaz about this topic but what are your thoughts on the legality of running jets right up to Bears Paws Quote
KevinC Posted January 1, 2014 Posted January 1, 2014 It would be interesting to know why the City is trumping the Federal ruling. We were not allowed to have powerboats for rescue (as per OHS) on the river for several past and ongoing bridge projects being completed over the bow and elbow rivers. The only way we could have a power boat was to pay CPS $900 an hour. The company which I am no longer with was not willing to push the issue, basically putting in other measures and hoping they were effective enough to prevent someone from falling in. Quote
ÜberFly Posted January 1, 2014 Posted January 1, 2014 Same with the city ordinance regarding PFDs supersedes the federal regulations some how?! Quote
Jayhad Posted January 2, 2014 Author Posted January 2, 2014 I also wonder who would issue the ticket? CPS no longer has a boat unit Quote
Guest Sneaky Posted January 2, 2014 Posted January 2, 2014 Jay... you're up to no good. Best you just be quiet.... Quote
bcubed Posted January 2, 2014 Posted January 2, 2014 They don't need a CPS boat to give tickets. Someone calls in your boat number, and you get a knock at the door. Yes, this does happen. Powered boats aren't allowed upstream of Deerfoot Extender, not just 22x. It's the same idea as the life jackets, the city has proven for safety to not allow joe-jet boat to go rippin in the city. You would never win in court (as someone tried with the life jackets and got laughed out). With how some of the drivers operate, I can't blame them. Quote
Gaffer Posted January 2, 2014 Posted January 2, 2014 Without get too much into it, things like this fall under the Municipal Government Act which gives Municipalities the right to govern area beyond what federal laws are in place. taken from the MGA http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/acts/m26.pdf Bylaws Division 1 General Jurisdiction General jurisdiction to pass bylaws 7 A council may pass bylaws for municipal purposes respecting the following matters: (a) the safety, health and welfare of people and the protection of people and property; ( people, activities and things in, on or near a public place or place that is open to the public; © nuisances, including unsightly property; RSA 2000 Section 8 Chapter M-26 35 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ACT (d) transport and transportation systems; (e) businesses, business activities and persons engaged in business; (f) services provided by or on behalf of the municipality; (g) public utilities; (h) wild and domestic animals and activities in relation to them; (i) the enforcement of bylaws made under this or any other enactment, including any or all of the following: (i) the creation of offences; (ii) for each offence, imposing a fine not exceeding $10 000 or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both; (iii) providing for the imposition of a penalty for an offence that is in addition to a fine or imprisonment so long as the penalty relates to a fee, cost, rate, toll or charge that is associated with the conduct that gives rise to the offence; (iv) providing that a specified penalty prescribed under section 44 of the Provincial Offences Procedure Act is reduced by a specified amount if the penalty is paid within a specified time; (v) providing for imprisonment for not more than one year for non-payment of a fine or penalty; (vi) providing that a person who contravenes a bylaw may pay an amount established by bylaw and if the amount is paid, the person will not be prosecuted for the contravention; (vii) providing for inspections to determine if bylaws are being complied with; (viii) remedying contraventions of bylaws. 1994 cM-26.1 s7 Quote
Jayhad Posted January 2, 2014 Author Posted January 2, 2014 They don't need a CPS boat to give tickets. Someone calls in your boat number, and you get a knock at the door. Yes, this does happen. Powered boats aren't allowed upstream of Deerfoot Extender, not just 22x. It's the same idea as the life jackets, the city has proven for safety to not allow joe-jet boat to go rippin in the city. You would never win in court (as someone tried with the life jackets and got laughed out). With how some of the drivers operate, I can't blame them. you are correct they don't need a boat but they have to be able to prove without a reasonable doubt it was X boat in the water. I'd like to know when the life jacket case was heard by the court, any ideas? I've talked to a couple of lawyers about this and they think it could be winable. If one yhas proven to the Feds that they are safely capable of operating a motor boat, by doing the course and test, the city shouldn't be able to say it is a safety issue. But better yet maybe sneaky is right and I should just be quiet about this.... 1 Quote
fishinglibin Posted January 2, 2014 Posted January 2, 2014 I dont have a problem with having to wear a pfd at all times as I normally do when in my boat and sometimes wading(self inflate), so I would not fight it anyway. Boating parts of the city would be nice especially post flood, but I see why some are concerned about safety and liability as some boaters feel they own the water and are complete asses. I see courteuos boaters and like to think I am one of the more courteous, but you cant keep all happy. If laws in town were changed, who would have the right of way? There are so many dingy and tube floaters on a summer day. If changed, I feel the power boats should have right of way. Quote
bcubed Posted January 2, 2014 Posted January 2, 2014 You can't give boats that have the ability to power themselves the right-of-way over some dolt in a dingy that doesn't have a paddle. I'd be pretty willing to bet that's why they want powered boats out of city limits, save the stupid people from getting hit by someone not paying attention. Though, that would be the ideal way to get them banned entirely from the Bow... Jay, in this day and age of instant communication and photos, it is not hard to prove a boat was anywhere... I know why you want to do it, and i think an easier fight will be trying to get more boat launch access, rather then pissing off more people by 'sneaking' a boat in. There's no way you're making it up to bearspaw in a jet and not having a cop sitting on your trailer when you get back to police (or higher, if you dared). There was a guy two summers ago trying to launch his jet at 22x, and there was a firestorm of people calling the cops on him...he never even got it wet before one showed up. Quote
Jayhad Posted January 3, 2014 Author Posted January 3, 2014 I know why you want to do it, and i think an easier fight will be trying to get more boat launch access, rather then pissing off more people by 'sneaking' a boat in. There's no way you're making it up to bearspaw in a jet and not having a cop sitting on your trailer when you get back to police (or higher, if you dared). . A) there's no way to successfully fight for more access. No one from any level of government will accept responsibility for launches, no one will sit down to discuss it. TU doesn't care, the guides association doesn't care as long as launches are open downstream of glenmore and after years of trying to get traction and going no where i've decided this fighting for others to have access isn't for me anymore. B ) challenge accepted Quote
shredneck Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 Save your cash from getting tied up in motorized boating tickets and legal fees... ...just buy this place and build your own launch. http://beta.realtor.ca/propertyDetails.aspx?PropertyId=13783920 1 Quote
Gil Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 Jets on the Bow are just a bad idea in or out of city limits. The river is too small, with too many people in it. You can see the shore erode with muddy shorelines as they rip by. I for one would like higher fines for jetting in the city. Quote
fishinglibin Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 Jets on the Bow are just a bad idea in or out of city limits. The river is too small, with too many people in it. You can see the shore erode with muddy shorelines as they rip by. I for one would like higher fines for jetting in the city. Do props do the same with erosion? Quote
ÜberFly Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 Paul One couldn't run a boat with a prop on the majority of the Bow, so technically it's a non issue... But if they could run, then yes they would do the same with regards to erosion of the banks... Quote
Jayhad Posted January 4, 2014 Author Posted January 4, 2014 Jets on the Bow are just a bad idea in or out of city limits. The river is too small, with too many people in it. You can see the shore erode with muddy shorelines as they rip by. I for one would like higher fines for jetting in the city. Ridiculous arguement..... in the last decade jets haven't done the "damage" that one flood did.. Higher fines for jetting in the city..... yes because the current fine structure is clearly not working.... 1 Quote
fishinglibin Posted January 4, 2014 Posted January 4, 2014 So I would think Gil"s beef is with anything power. Pre flood when I had a 15 hp short shaft I could prop from Carseland to above Policemans, when low may have to walk it a short part.Did not try above before city law as I liked the other water, now if law allowed I know you couldn't. I do appreciate we all have our right to our own opinions. FFC is a good example of that and continues to create good conversation. Quote
Jayhad Posted January 4, 2014 Author Posted January 4, 2014 Did not try above before city law as I liked the other water, now if law allowed I know you couldn't. could you clarify this? I'm not attacking just asking, I drifted once this season below the glenmore so I don't really know about that water post flood, are there sections now that are too shallow to allow a boat through? If one was to jet in the city I would think launching above the core would be key Quote
fishinglibin Posted January 5, 2014 Posted January 5, 2014 No problem,what I meant was before the flood with a prop I could usually go from Carseland as far as above policemans with no trouble. I did not go past that point as I liked the water below and felt no need to. I believe I could have still navigated the upstream waters with no to little difficulty, but since the flood from walk or drive by, there are several areas I do not feel I could navigate in normal water levels as such long shallow areas and shelves have been created. Last summer I only fished Mac to above the highwood and then did not get on the water as I tore my knee. So I cant report on how navigable it is much farther up than the Highwood for now. Pardon me for the confusion created. You do the city a lot. When I cross the river on 17 ave se and look upstream in lower water levels it look extremely shallow for a long distance. Do you still clear it okay in your drift boat? Now I have a small tiller jet, so can likely go anywhere anytime, where the law allows. Quote
Jayhad Posted January 6, 2014 Author Posted January 6, 2014 The only place I've had an issue with low water is just below Centre, and just above Crowchild. every where else no problems drifting thru. I know the section you are talking about but there is a deep channel flowing just off of river right Quote
SanJuanWorm Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 Erosion from a boat? This is just plain silly. Quote
DonAndersen Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 And the answer is: http://www.youtube.com/embed/2150iFXF5Vc?rel=0 It would even solve downtown parking problems. Don 2 Quote
mrmomar Posted January 19, 2014 Posted January 19, 2014 Erosion from a boat? This is just plain silly. Silly or science? "Resource-management agencies are concerned that increased sedimentation and loss of streamside cover associated with accelerated erosion rates caused by boat activity may threaten salmon returns to the river. Bank loss and boat activity were characterized during 1996 along 67 miles of the Kenai River, including a segment of the river several miles long where boat activity is restricted to non-motorized uses. Bank loss in the non-motorized segment of the river was about 75 percent less than that observed in the highest boat-use area of the river and 33 per- cent less than that observed in the lowest boat-use area of the river" Source: http://ak.water.usgs.gov/Publications/pdf.reps/wrir97-4105v2.pdf On the Bow, high water events / floods occur once a year. Boat activity occurs 6 months a year, and it has the potential to negatively impact riparian vegetation establishment once high waters recede. Riparian vegetation stabilizes the bank during subsequent high water events. This is not silly. 1 Quote
dutchie Posted January 19, 2014 Posted January 19, 2014 I would think that last flood , did more damage to the banks then the last 20 years of jet boats on the river , it is what it is 1 Quote
SanJuanWorm Posted January 20, 2014 Posted January 20, 2014 I just don't believe it. Apathetic towards this study. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.