# Air Boat Marauders ! Withlacootche River



## wiggles6983 (May 5, 2007)

I second that air boats and most of their operators are very annoying.


----------



## gregfl (Dec 10, 2007)

Funny this thread appeared as I was south of the Chass last weekend camping on my Kayak and back in a creek and all of a sudden the water started vibrating and the noise was getting louder and louder. I envisioned the azzwipe coming around the corner and killing me so I lifted my fishing pole and started waving it back and forth. Sure enough fatty and his dog/girfriend came flying around the corner, passed me at about 20 feet and waved like all was well.

These guys just really suck. they run around the backcountry like they own it, make more noise then a jet fighter,and come roaring in on you turning off the bite without even knowing or caring what they are doing.

The phrase 'intentionally ignorant' comes to mind. How long before one of them kills a kayaker or micro-skiff operator?

accidents like this should concern all of us who share the backcountry with these guys?

"An Inverness woman was killed Sunday evening when the airboat she was riding on collided with a 20-foot cabin motorboat Both vessels were in a narrow canal east of Big Spivey Lake near Inverness and met on a blind “s” curve in the 40-foot wide canal. The starboard bow of the airboat struck the port bow of the motorboat. The airboat capsized immediately upon impact and both operator and passenger on the airboat were ejected."
http://www.fishorshutup.com/PRESS%20RELEASES/airboat_accident_results_in_one_.htm


----------



## thresher (Dec 18, 2006)

The first ever Gheenoe Rally had a very ugly time with some airboaters. It wasn't pretty. They nearly swamped ALL of the boats (none were occupied) and continued on their merry way.


----------



## deerfly (Mar 10, 2007)

I guess I need to weigh in here since I've spent nearly 30 years around, on and owning airboats myself. First off, let me say I take exception to the broad labeling of airboat operators as obnoxious, ignorant slobs and what ever else one may infer from certain comments made here. I can tell you the overwhelming majority of airboaters are no different than any other outdoor/boating lot. You have careless, disrespectful types across the board. If you've never owned or spent a lot of time on airboats you'll never get it. They are loud no doubt and to the uninitiated seem like an obnoxious culmination of technology, but they have their place when operated responsibly. The places where I grew up they were the only way to see 99% of the everglades. 

Enough of that. The problem you have here in the west central FL salt marshes is you have too many places where airboats and other types of boats can be at the same time. And with airboats especially, they don't have to follow the same navigable water ways and creeks as paddlers and other conventional boats, so they need to be extra cautious when coming off the grass or marsh where a low profile boat may be. Most places around the state where airboats are used extensively, no other type of boat can get in there so easily or not very far from open water anyway. So you don't normally have these considerations.

I am not making excuses for careless operation of any water craft, especially in limited visibility areas, but if you frequent the same areas where there is the potential for airboat traffic, I would get an 8' fiberglass pole with a small orange flag on the end of it and mount it vertically from the highest point on your boat. 99% of all airboat owners are programmed to see these things as a sign of another boat ahead. As long as these airboaters are operating in areas where they're allowed to, then they have the same right to be there as anyone else. - eric


----------



## aaronshore (Aug 24, 2007)

Well said Eric. I frequent the Puzzle Lake area with my buddy Wade on his airboat quite often. I must say I have never met a more responsible, or curteous operator of any sort of watercraft. Like Eric said, you have the bad apples like you do anywhere, but I think a hasty generilization doesnt help anybody.


----------



## tom_in_orl (Dec 9, 2006)

> I would get a 50 cal. and mount it from the highest point on your boat. 99% of all airboat owners are programmed to see these things as a sign of another boat ahead.


Thanks for the advice


----------



## noeettica (Sep 23, 2007)

FWC Has been notified !


----------



## deerfly (Mar 10, 2007)

> > I would get a 50 cal. and mount it from the highest point on your boat. 99% of all airboat owners are programmed to see these things as a sign of another boat ahead.
> 
> 
> Thanks for the advice


I take it you don't like airboaters.


----------



## costefishnt (Dec 11, 2006)

Eric, I couldnt have said it any better.

I too grew on airboats. Most of the places we went did hold other boating public, however just as we (the responsible ones) do now, we maintained a vigilent watch.

another note on airboats. It is a tricky machine to operate, however in the hands of a skilled pilot they are as safe, if not safer than any other open cockpit boat on the water. loud? yes.


----------



## Weedy (Dec 11, 2006)

I'm 50/50 on the airboats, however, I know of alot of "lake-n-bay boats that should have there operators YANKED from the helm. Alot of them have no idea what courtesy means or find it in the dictonary none the less! I guess it boils down to what area you are in and what the majority of boats that run the area are. We have a few airboats in the area I'm at and for the most part they are a ok. Just watch out for the full size boats [smiley=bigshock.gif]


----------



## Capt_Jeff (Feb 19, 2007)

*I guess my first question would be was the area a posted "no wake zone" or by law are they allowed to run up on plane in the area?*

And if it wasn't, then why would you expect an apology or notify FWC.

*It appears you took the proper actions & had enough common sense to move your slower, smaller boat to the bank which any responsable operator would do.*

Should he have waved & given you the *"thumbs up?"*

Sure, that would have been the courteous thing to do.

But as an airboat operator myself, slowing down suddenly for every smaller boat when I also  have the *right of way * is not always possible, sometimes impractical & unsafe for myself & passangers.

Will I when I can?

*Sure it's the courteous thing to do!!!*

But on the other hand micro's, noe's & granola throwing yakers need to also take responsibility for themselves & be aware that they are operating a smaller, less manuverable craft.

Which in this case, you did.

*Good Job!!!*


BTW, Over on airboater forum there have been discussions about smaller boats showing up more & more in airboat country & they biotch because you are always in the way. LOL ;D


----------



## dcands (Apr 4, 2008)

It's just them damn airboaters... 

Pay no attention to the pro-bass tourney guy's doing 70 to 80 MPH in the channels almost colliding with everybody. Oh not to mention a 70 to 80 boat weigh in you better be no where in sight, for a million dollar purse your life is worthless


----------



## noeettica (Sep 23, 2007)

I was on a wild life cruise ..

I go out of my way to be courtious to the point of shutting down my engine and going to the trolling motor 

In this case I think the Airboat operator was suprised to see me ...he had less warning than I did .... I think he was surprised by the wake he caused ..... the guys behind him had it under control .... 

Are there different classes of these boats ? like an 0200 motor verses the huge Re-Drive V-8 Boats I mean Do ya need 500hp ? on a river that is a glorified puddle ?

I guess when I start runnin super skinny I will display a flag !

Dave


----------



## Capt_Jeff (Feb 19, 2007)

Again, was the area a *"no wake zone"* & if not what laws did he break???

I'm not trying to be a prick but you put up someones FL#'s on a public web forum for all to see & if no laws were broken other that you were on a wildlife cruise, what has been accomplished here other than to start a rift between (2) two user groups?

If there were no laws broken, all you've done is to single out a user group that had the right to be out there on the water the same as you.

If it was another micro that came around the corner & did the same thing, would you have posted his FL#'s or even this thread?

We all have the right to be out there enjoying the resource.

And lets face it, they were here first & contribute alot to the economy.

Not that airboaters are any better or should not have to abide by the COLREG's while on navigatable waters but you started this!!! ;D

Are they a little sensitive, sure they are.

They get attack from all side for attempting to enjoy the resource & all get blamed for a few bad apples in thier sport.

So, would you like another crack @ answering my question???


----------



## brew1891 (Dec 10, 2006)

> Again, was the area a *"no wake zone"* & if not what laws did he break???


Just because there is not a "no wake zone" sign does not mean that a law may not have been broken. 

For everyone's enlightenment here is an exert from the US CG Navigation Center website:

While vessels under 1600 GT are not specifically required to manage their speed in regards to wake, they are still required to operate in a prudent matter which does not endanger life, limb, or property (46 USC 2302). Nor do the Navigation Rules exonerate any vessel from the consequences of neglect (Rule 2), which, among other things, could be unsafe speeds (Rule 6), improper lookout (Rule 5), or completely ignoring your responsibilities as prescribed by the Navigation Rules. 
As to whether or not a particular vessel is responsible for the damage it creates is a question of law and fact that is best left to the Courts. For more information, contact your local Marine Patrol or State Boating Law Administrator. 

This should add more fuel to the fire...please continue the "I love airboats" vs. "I hate airboats' debate.


----------



## tom_in_orl (Dec 9, 2006)

> > > I would get a 50 cal. and mount it from the highest point on your boat. 99% of all airboat owners are programmed to see these things as a sign of another boat ahead.
> >
> >
> > Thanks for the advice
> ...


I just went for the easy joke. I'm fine with airboats. Might even be a bit jealous cause it louder than my Harley. ;D


----------



## iMacattack (Dec 11, 2006)

> Just because there is not a "no wake zone" sign does not mean that a law may not have been broken.
> 
> For everyone's enlightenment here is an exert from the US CG Navigation Center website:
> 
> ...


Bingo! Good post!

Cheers
Capt. Jan


----------



## Capt_Jeff (Feb 19, 2007)

I very aware with that statute & how it is applied & enforced.

*Example: *Vessels rafting up together near a no/slow wake zone & tied to docks & such.

But while in navigatble waters with no speed zones it's a hard one to prove & enforce.

Bottom line we are all responible for our own actions.

It's like the excuse, "well I had the right of way so I didn't turn off."

There's also a COLREG stating that all efforts will be made to avoid a collision.


----------



## iMacattack (Dec 11, 2006)

You have touched on a hot topic with me capt. jeff. I can not count how many time I have been buzzed out off Hwy 27 in the glades by Airboats and bass anglers. On a couple occasions novice anglers on my skiff have nearly fallen in the water due to their carelessness. However those who do slow down – both airboats and bass boats – I have gone out of my way to express my thanks. Down here it's a rare thing to find folks who show courtesy.

We all need to be aware that as a boat captain, regardless of the size of your vessel, you are responsible for your wake period. Federal law requires all vessels to "reduce speed sufficiently to prevent damage when passing vessels or structures in or along all navigable waters of the U.S." That includes any damages that occur as a result of your wake, regardless of whether you had “the right of way”. Many large vessel operators, weekenders and airboat jockeys – many I refuse to call captains – are either unaware of this maritime law or they just don’t care. They simply press onward as if the smaller vessels were not there or worse as if they were an annoyance.

If you operate a boat – any size boat – make sure you understand the rules. Even without the liability, it is only common courtesy to slow for a smaller vessel that is not underway.

If you are in one of those smaller vessels, you need to watch where you anchor or where you stop. You need to be aware of the destructive power of a steep wake from a larger vessel. It is your due diligence to protect yourself, your occupants and property.

Stay safe,
Capt. jan

Good Article

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 7, 2003]
[Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
January 7, 2003 and December 19, 2003]
[CITE: 46USC2302]


TITLE 46--SHIPPING

Subtitle II--Vessels and Seamen

Part A--General Provisions

CHAPTER 23--OPERATION OF VESSELS GENERALLY

Sec. 2302. Penalties for negligent operations and interfering 
with safe operation

(a) A person operating a vessel in a negligent manner or interfering 
with the safe operation of a vessel, so as to endanger the life, limb, 
or property of a person is liable to the United States Government for a 
*civil penalty of not more than $5,000 in the case of a recreational 
vessel*, or $25,000 in the case of any other vessel.
(b) A person operating a vessel in a grossly negligent manner that 
endangers the life, limb, or property of a person commits a *class A 
misdemeanor.*
(c) An individual who is under the influence of alcohol, or a 
dangerous drug in violation of a law of the United States when operating 
a vessel, as determined under standards prescribed by the Secretary by 
regulation--
(1) is liable to the United States Government for a civil 
penalty of not more than $5,000; or
(2) commits a class A misdemeanor.

(d) For a penalty imposed under this section, *the vessel also is 
liable in rem* unless the vessel is--
(1) owned by a State or a political subdivision of a State;
(2) operated principally for governmental purposes; and
(3) identified clearly as a vessel of that State or subdivision.

(e)(1) A vessel may not transport Government-impelled cargoes if--
(A) the vessel has been detained and determined to be 
substandard by the Secretary for violation of an international 
safety convention to which the United States is a party, and the 
Secretary has published notice of that detention and determination 
in an electronic form, including the name of the owner of the 
vessel; or
(B) the operator of the vessel has on more than one occasion had 
a vessel detained and determined to be substandard by the Secretary 
for violation of an international safety convention to which the 
United States is a party, and the Secretary has published notice of 
that detention and determination in an electronic form, including 
the name of the owner of the vessel.

(2) The prohibition in paragraph (1) expires for a vessel on the 
earlier of--
(A) 1 year after the date of the publication in electronic form 
on which the prohibition is based; or
(B) any date on which the owner or operator of the vessel 
prevails in an appeal of the violation of the relevant international 
convention on which the detention is based.

(3) As used in this subsection, the term ``Government-impelled 
cargo'' means cargo for which a Federal agency contracts directly for 
shipping by water or for which (or the freight of which) a Federal 
agency provides financing, including financing by grant, loan, or loan 
guarantee, resulting in shipment of the cargo by water.

(Pub. L. 98-89, Aug. 26, 1983, 97 Stat. 508; Pub. L. 98-557, Sec. 7(a), 
Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 2862; Pub. L. 101-380, title IV, 
Secs. 4105(b)(2), 4302(a), Aug. 18, 1990, 104 Stat. 513, 537; Pub. L. 
102-587, title V, Sec. 5102, Nov. 4, 1992, 106 Stat. 5071; Pub. L. 105-
383, title III, Secs. 302(a), 304(c), title IV, Sec. 408(a), Nov. 13, 
1998, 112 Stat. 3417, 3419, 3430; Pub. L. 107-295, title III, Sec. 325, 
Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2105.)

Historical and Revision Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised section Source section (U.S. Code)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2302(a)........................... 46:1461(d)
46:1484(b)
2302(b)........................... 46:1461(d)
46:1483
2302(c)........................... 46:1484(b)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 2302 states that the negligent operation of a vessel is 
prohibited. These acts are subject to civil and criminal penalties and 
the involved vessel is subject to an in rem action. The negligent 
operation provisions have their genesis in the Act of April 25, 1940, 54 
Stat. 167, when Congress prescribed that no person shall operate any 
motorboat or any vessel in a reckless or negligent manner. This 
provision was directed at all vessels and not those solely engaged in 
recreational boating. When the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971, P.L. 92-
75, 85 Stat. 217 (46 U.S.C. 1461) was enacted it adopted the reckless or 
negligent operation provisions of the 1940 Act. It adopted for the first 
time a provision for assessing civil penalties in addition to criminal 
penalties. It dropped the word ``reckless'' because of redundancy. It 
also combined the two classes of vessels; ``any motorboat or any 
vessel'' into one class by using the word ``vessel'' and defined vessel 
as including every description of watercraft.


Amendments

2002--Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107-295 substituted ``$5,000 in the case 
of a recreational vessel, or $25,000 in the case of any other vessel'' 
for ``$1,000''
1998--Pub. L. 105-383, Sec. 302(a)(1), substituted ``Penalties for 
negligent operations and interfering with safe operation'' for 
``Penalties for negligent operations'' in section catchline.
Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 105-383, Sec. 302(a)(2), substituted ``or 
interfering with the safe operation of a vessel, so as to endanger'' for 
``that endangers''.
Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 105-383, Sec. 304(c), substituted ``$5,000; 
or'' for ``$1,000 for a first violation and not more than $5,000 for a 
subsequent violation; or''.
Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 105-383, Sec. 408(a), added subsec. (e).
1992--Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 102-587 substituted ``$1,000 for a 
first violation and not more than $5,000 for a subsequent violation'' 
for ``$1,000''.
1990--Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 101-380, Sec. 4302(a)(1), substituted 
``commits a class A misdemeanor'' for ``shall be fined not more than 
$5,000, imprisoned for not more than one year, or both''.
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 101-380, Secs. 4105(b)(2), 4302(a)(2)(A), 
substituted ``under the influence of alcohol, or a dangerous drug in 
violation of a law of the United States'' for ``intoxicated'' and struck 
out ``, shall be'' after ``by the Secretary by regulation''.
Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 101-380, Sec. 4302(a)(2)(B), substituted 
``is liable'' for ``liable''.
Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 101-380, Sec. 4302(a)(2)(C), amended par. 
(2) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (2) read as follows: ``fined not 
more than $5,000, imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.''
1984--Subsecs. (c), (d). Pub. L. 98-557 added subsec. (c) and 
redesignated former subsec. (c) as (d).


Effective Date of 1998 Amendment

Pub. L. 105-383, title IV, Sec. 408(b), Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 
3431, provided that: ``The amendment made by subsection (a) [amending this section] takes effect January 1, 1999.''


Effective Date of 1990 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 101-380 applicable to incidents occurring after 
Aug. 18, 1990, see section 1020 of Pub. L. 101-380, set out as an 
Effective Date note under section 2701 of Title 33, Navigation and


----------



## MATT (Apr 30, 2007)

WELL SAID JAN.

Also take what eric said to hart and help to protect your self

"I would get an 8' fiberglass pole with a small orange flag on the end of it and mount it vertically from the highest point on your boat. 99% of all airboat owners are programmed to see these things as a sign of another boat ahead. As long as these airboaters are operating in areas where they're allowed to, then they have the same right to be there as anyone "

between the two you'll have it coverd.


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2008)

I want to preface with "I am not an air boat lover" and really don't care for the noise personally. 

All boats are responsible for their wakes. I don't want to start with the debate of "idle" because certain boats require a minimal speed to maintain control which include air boats and the dreaded jet ski.

It also required that all vessels do whatever necessary to avoid a collision, forget that right away crap. You only have right of way if it's yielded to you. Having said this you have a definite advantage to avoid a collision. You had to of heard him coming. :


again just my .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002 sense


BTW - I choose to frequent places where air boats are restricted.


----------



## tom_in_orl (Dec 9, 2006)

This thread caused a spike in the server logs. Gotta love the Internet. 

http://www.southernairboat.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10372&hilit=microskiff


BTW, I think their thread is as screwed up as this one. Each has a few good points but mostly they are garbage.

This was interesting even though it was off topic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFElo9jUXxw


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2008)

> This thread caused a spike in the server logs. Gotta love the Internet.
> 
> http://www.southernairboat.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10372&hilit=microskiff
> 
> ...



Interesting read from their point of view. 

I can tell you where they think the flag should be "stuck". ;D ;D ;D


----------



## tailchaser (Mar 16, 2008)

Here's the main problem:
There's no law saying azz ho!e$ can't own a vessel. Anybody with a little pocket change can ruin a good day on the water for you. NOT ONLY airboaters, how often has a jet ski, or even microskiff buzzed across a flat that you're poling . I don't know about you, but i'd rather be swamped once or twice at the ramp. Ever been to an IRL public boat ramp on the week end in the spring? It's a circus, and a great place to learn how not to operate a vessel :-/. 
Fact is, there are many types of irresponsible people that own many different types of watercraft. In airboater's defense, i've known many bass anglers with bigger boats that'll complain if an airboater slows down, many of them would rather take a wake than wait an extra few minutes for the airboater to pass. So, really, they can't read minds and shouldn't have to. They have just as much right as everyone else. I'd venture to guess if it'd been a ski boat creating the wake that swamped you, they would be the focus of this thread. When the real focus SHOULD BE irresponsible boat owners and operators, of all kinds of propulsion.


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2008)

> Here's the main problem:
> There's no law saying azz ho!e$ can't own a vessel. Anybody with a little pocket change can ruin a good day on the water for you. NOT ONLY airboaters, how often has a jet ski, or even microskiff buzzed across a flat that you're poling . I don't know about you, but i'd rather be swamped once or twice at the ramp. Ever been to an IRL public boat ramp on the week end in the spring? It's a circus, and a great place to learn how not to operate a vessel :-/.
> Fact is, there are many types of irresponsible people that own many different types of watercraft. In airboater's defense, i've known many bass anglers with bigger boats that'll complain if an airboater slows down, many of them would rather take a wake than wait an extra few minutes for the airboater to pass. So, really, they can't read minds and shouldn't have to. They have just as much right as everyone else. I'd venture to guess if it'd been a ski boat creating the wake that swamped you, they would be the focus of this thread. When the real focus SHOULD BE irresponsible boat owners and operators, of all kinds of propulsion.



[smiley=bravo.gif] [smiley=bravo.gif]


----------



## costefishnt (Dec 11, 2006)

> > Here's the main problem:
> > There's no law saying azz ho!e$ can't own a vessel. Anybody with a little pocket change can ruin a good day on the water for you.  NOT ONLY airboaters, how often has a jet ski, or even microskiff buzzed across a flat that you're poling . I don't know about you, but i'd rather be swamped once or twice at the ramp.  Ever been to an IRL public boat ramp on the week end in the spring? It's a circus, and a great place to learn how not to operate a vessel :-/.
> > Fact is, there are many types of irresponsible people that own many different types of watercraft.  In airboater's defense, i've known many bass anglers with bigger boats that'll complain if an airboater slows down, many of them would rather take a wake than wait an extra few minutes for the airboater to pass. So, really, they can't read minds and shouldn't have to. They have just as much right as everyone else.  I'd venture to guess if it'd been a ski boat creating the wake that swamped you, they would be the focus of this thread.  When the real focus SHOULD BE irresponsible boat owners and operators, of all kinds of propulsion.
> 
> ...



x's eleventy billion.


----------



## MATT (Apr 30, 2007)

> > > Here's the main problem:
> > > There's no law saying azz ho!e$ can't own a vessel. Anybody with a little pocket change can ruin a good day on the water for you.  NOT ONLY airboaters, how often has a jet ski, or even microskiff buzzed across a flat that you're poling . I don't know about you, but i'd rather be swamped once or twice at the ramp.  Ever been to an IRL public boat ramp on the week end in the spring? It's a circus, and a great place to learn how not to operate a vessel :-/.
> > > Fact is, there are many types of irresponsible people that own many different types of watercraft.  In airboater's defense, i've known many bass anglers with bigger boats that'll complain if an airboater slows down, many of them would rather take a wake than wait an extra few minutes for the airboater to pass. So, really, they can't read minds and shouldn't have to. They have just as much right as everyone else.  I'd venture to guess if it'd been a ski boat creating the wake that swamped you, they would be the focus of this thread.  When the real focus SHOULD BE irresponsible boat owners and operators, of all kinds of propulsion.
> >
> ...


sounds like the new guy will fit in just find around here.


----------



## noeettica (Sep 23, 2007)

Did I miss somthing ... the only point I made in my origional post was that the leader was surprised by his wake as I was ... a reasonable amount of thrust is required to get an airboat around a corner and short of poling the thing there was no other way to make that corner , kind of like a funnel ...

The guy even gave me a hand signal telling me there were 3 other boats coming 

I was a bit keyed up the day of the post ..... Did not expect the huge response ...

Dave


----------



## Guest (Apr 10, 2008)

> ... Did not expect the huge response ...
> 
> Dave


We like it "huge" around here.  Great forum - great folks.


----------



## JRH (Mar 18, 2007)

All airboat owners are ignorant, *******, bait-slinging criminals. Every single one of them.

[smiley=popcorn2.gif]




[smiley=chase.gif]


----------



## Guest (Apr 10, 2008)

> All airboat owners are ignorant, *******, bait-slinging criminals. Every single one of them.
> 
> [smiley=popcorn2.gif]
> 
> ...


----------



## E (Jan 22, 2008)

My take...the real issue is boater education.  I have been buzzed so close by jet skis, runabouts, carolina skiffs, jon boats that I have had rods pulled out my rod holders while i'm fishing.  And that's while I was drifting a flat for cobia from my Lake&Bay!!!  It doesn't matter what boat you're in, some a$$hole somewhere will piss you off at one time or another.   I have also had the marine patrol completely ruin my day by running through a school of 100+ Tarpon I was chasing near Passage Key. AND THEY KNOW BETTER!!!  Courtesy...?  The problem is any a$$hole can go rent a boat  or buy one and be hot chit for a day and there is no experience required!! Just a credit card.   As much as I hate Govt interferance, this issue requires it.  I really think we need boater driver licenses.  It could be like a motor cycle endorsement.  The marine industry is too important to Florida's economy not to make it safer for everyone.  If they make you take a 3 day class to dive, why shouldn't you have to do the same to rent/buy a boat?!!  

Take #2...if you know there are airboats on a particular river, why boat there?...go somewhere else.  Would drive a moped on the Autobahn?  You know they are there and you know the risks...Bashing airboaters is entertaining, but not going to solve anything...Tight Lines!


----------



## iMacattack (Dec 11, 2006)

> the real issue is boater education.


Bingo! While very unpopular... I'm for mandatory boating licensing and testing.

Too many ppl out there who are completely unaware the rules required for safe navigation. 

Capt. Jan


----------



## tom_in_orl (Dec 9, 2006)

Great idea. Now everyone will be capt. dumbazz












jk [smiley=StirPotChef.gif]


----------



## deerfly (Mar 10, 2007)

roger that Tom, I've met some real A$$ hole "licensed" captains over the years. 

Its not the test and certification, its whether an individual complies with the rules of the road that matters. The only thing with a licensed captain is if involved in an accident or altercation they are held to a higher standard and thus have more to loose than a non-licensed civilian in the same circumstances.

I've thought about mandatory recreational licensing many times and end up being against it. To me its more like gun control, its the enforcement of the rules/laws that really matter. Without a real fear of penalty most people will disregard the rules anyway. Sad but true.


----------



## Capt_Jeff (Feb 19, 2007)

I would have to agree on boater licensing.

You need a license to drive a car, fly an airplane & operate vessels comemrcially.

Why the He!!! don't you need a license to operate a pleasure boat?

Someone mentioned the 2nd amendment.

*Boating is not a RIGHT, it's a privalege!!!*

There are bad apples in every group that make us all look bad.

A simple (2) two day course to learn simple rules of thwe road, launching/recovering, courteos operation would not be a bad thing.


----------



## JRH (Mar 18, 2007)

> I really think we need boater driver licenses.



While it certainly can't hurt to to require boat operators to take a class and get a license, has the requirement to pass a test and obtain a motor vehicle license prevented people from driving on the roads like morons? What makes you think a boat license will result in a different outcome?

Like Eric said, we need better enforcement, not more regulations and licenses. You can't legislate stupidity.


----------



## deerfly (Mar 10, 2007)

> has the requirement to pass a test and obtain a motor vehicle license prevented people from driving on the roads like morons?


perfect analogy, its same guy driving the boat to the ramp that ends up driving the boat on the water...


----------



## phishphood (Dec 15, 2006)

There is a mandatory test you have to take in Alabama to operate a boat. I know I had to take it when I lived there. They even put a little sticker on your drivers license and all. I guess that makes Bama better.


----------



## E (Jan 22, 2008)

Believe me, I am not for more legislation. You can't buy air for a dive tank without the certification...think about it. I think it would deter would be captin izz-azzholes from renting or buying because of the hassle to do a class and take a test. I'm all for keeping those guys on the golf course and off the bay!! If my memory serves me correctly, don't kids born after 96 or 97 have to do a CG apporved rules of the road class? It doesn't help...just because you can pass a certification test doesn't mean you know what you're doing.


----------



## iMacattack (Dec 11, 2006)

> I would have to agree on boater licensing.
> 
> You need a license to drive a car, fly an airplane & operate vessels comemrcially.
> 
> ...


Holy end of days! The good capt. and I agree! ;D  Drivers lisc. is a poor analogy... Sorry but you failed... ;D   The issue is that any Joe or Jeff Yahoo can buy a boat put it on the water and endanger themselves or others because they don't know the right of way or which side of a channel marker to be on. 

Please understand I hate the thought of more legislation... makes my stomach turn. I'm for education. People will be snotwads, your can educate or legislate that out of existence. But if there was a minimum required amout of education the water would be safer.

Just my .00000002

Cheers
Capt. Jan


----------



## LoneRanger (Dec 11, 2006)

this thread is yankee. :


----------

