| Name: |
ecstasypoint
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
on rights
|
|
Date:
|
4/17/2008 8:24:19 AM
|
We've heard so much about the rights of certain boaters, I would just like to speak for a moment for those of us who wish we had a right to a quieter lake. When you thunder past my house blarring your stereo, yelling to a skier, shaking the dishes out of my cupboard, drownding out my conversation, slamming my boat against my pier, you are imposing your will against mine, and this is an infingement on my "rights," too. We've seen that compromise on this issue is not going to be easy. But a consideration of your opposition's point of view might help us come to compromise.
Furthermore, I have never supported a boat ban. I wish that people would drive responsibly and reasonably consider those of us who are trying to live here. I think that taking a moment to consider the infringement that you are imposing on others is needed on BOTH sides of this issue.
|
It NEVER ceases to amaze me what folks will complain about. You move to one of the largest lakes in the country and then complain about things that are inherent in living on a lake. Boats thundering by, yelling at skiers, my God man call out the National Guard. As for your boat, it is first and foremost YOUR responsibillity to secure YOUR WATERCRAFT against damage. Waves are inherent to water so if YOUR boat is beating against YOUR peir it is YOUR FAULT. As for the dishes rattling in the cabinets, I will bet my house that that has never happened, and whats more, could NEVER be made to happen by boats going by.
|
There was an old owl that lived in an oak. The more that he heard, the less he spoke; The less he spoke, the more he heard. Oh if you were like that wise bird!
I'm going to suggest a good book for all those who seem to have REALLY BAD OUTLOOKS on life. It's called "YOUR BEST LIFE NOW" By Joel Osteen. It will open your mind to a new way of thinking. You will see the bitterness that comes out of you. You are in my prayers.
|
| Name: |
jrh3
-
|
|
| Subject: |
on rights
|
|
Date:
|
4/17/2008 9:07:32 AM
|
LTL can't read .. he can only run his bitter mouth
|
| Name: |
cg
-
|
|
| Subject: |
on rights
|
|
Date:
|
4/17/2008 9:08:36 AM
|
ok, not to be mean or hateful, but ecstasypoint if you moved to the lake for
peace and no people sounds, would that be the same as living next to the railroad tracks and trying to get the trains to make no sound at all when they past you house? and remember the trains only use the tracks
in front of your house 20% of the whole time you are there. does your lease have a no sound clause because you think everybody else is suppose to bend to your whims?, 20% of the time? have you thought of trying ear plugs 20% of the time? remember I am not being mean or hateful, just trying to figure out your rights on a public lake. god bless!
|
I am the bitter one......lol.
|
| Name: |
ALSCN
-
|
|
| Subject: |
on rights
|
|
Date:
|
4/17/2008 9:15:32 AM
|
I could be wrong but I think FWB girl was referring to EP not LTL... which I think it is obvious to all of us that EP is the one being a little bitter here.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
on rights
|
|
Date:
|
4/17/2008 9:21:17 AM
|
I understand the frustration at times with inconsiderate boaters but I think LTL has a point. Living on a lake has lots of terrific benefits but it comes with some downsides as well. If it really bothers you having boats come by creating a wake then maybe you should consider moving into a slough like we have. That is never an issue with us although we don't have year round water and our view, while better than the one from my office, isn't looking out at a beautiful expanse of Lake Martin. It also goes completely dry in the winter. I take those negative aspects because of the peace and quiet and greater affordability of my place.
Boats, waves, music, shouting to skiers, thats lake living. It is like those who move into a house near an airport and then start to complain about the noise. Or moving into a neighborhood downwind of a paper mill and then starting to complain about the smell. They are legitimate problems but reflect a self-inflicted wound.
|
Well said MM. I too moved from 'big water' to a slough. I barely have to tie up my boat, much less worry about damage. Nice and quiet, but I actually miss some of the noise and confusion of big water at times. But my favorite times are Saturdays when all the neighbors are out, boats coming and going, but most of all the sound of kids playing and enjoying the water all around me. I love it because I know when they are my age I know what kind of great memories they are going to have.
Arent you in Manoy Creek?
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
on rights
|
|
Date:
|
4/17/2008 10:06:13 AM
|
We are in Sandy Creek Estates off Lakeshore Drive. Not sure what creek feeds our slough.
|
| Name: |
PikeSki
-
|
|
| Subject: |
on rights
|
|
Date:
|
4/17/2008 10:10:56 AM
|
Martini man,
We will be at the lake tomorrow night (Friday) through Sunday. If you get a chance to do some riding around, please do stop by if you are in the area.
You should have my GPS location.
|
Amen brothers. Don't move by the interstate and complain about the traffic!
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
on rights
|
|
Date:
|
4/17/2008 10:32:27 AM
|
Will do. Stef and Debbie will be there as well. Sounds like a good road trip......you may want to confirm your stock of beer.......
|
| Name: |
PikeSki
-
|
|
| Subject: |
on rights
|
|
Date:
|
4/17/2008 10:49:58 AM
|
We will have plenty of beers. I thought you drink Red Wine and Martini's. We'll have plenty of those as well !
|
| Name: |
UncleSam
-
|
|
| Subject: |
on rights
|
|
Date:
|
4/17/2008 11:31:43 AM
|
If I move onto a dirt road, can I complain when they turn it into an interstate?
|
| Name: |
AC KT
-
|
|
| Subject: |
on rights
|
|
Date:
|
4/17/2008 11:32:12 AM
|
You know what - your posts are exactly what lake living is all about - friends, fun, relaxing and enjoying life!!
|
| Name: |
logene
-
|
|
| Subject: |
on rights
|
|
Date:
|
4/17/2008 11:37:45 AM
|
We all are so fortunate to live in paradise! "ALL" the noise is music to my ears. Sure beats the asphalt jungle noise.
|
| Name: |
Spot Remover
-
|
|
| Subject: |
EP is right.
|
|
Date:
|
4/17/2008 11:40:21 AM
|
When others infringe on an individual's rights, a compromise has to be made. When damage is inflicted on a docked boat by people who obviously come too close to it, is it fair for the boatowner? There are laws that cover noise pollution and these same laws apply to Lake Martin. Some folks need to get a clue. The lake is there for everyone to enjoy. Railroad tracks and airports have nothing to do with Lake Martin.
|
| Name: |
cg
-
|
|
| Subject: |
EP's private lake,sr question?
|
|
Date:
|
4/17/2008 12:04:15 PM
|
ok I understand about the boat coming to close to her dock, but spot remover please explain her individual rights on this subject, what are they
and where are they wriiten down at?, I would like to see them. enforcement is the answer.
|
| Name: |
Fester
-
|
|
| Subject: |
EP's private lake,sr question?
|
|
Date:
|
4/17/2008 12:50:48 PM
|
The OP's line of thinking is getting the places I enjoy closed.....I'm a drag racer and my venues continue to close due to developers building and selling lots during the week when the tracks are closed.....as soon as a saturday rolls around and the cars start running the people start proceedings to close the track.....don't build/buy next to the big water/drag strip and then b!tch about the noise.....the track in Dallas Georgia had this exact thing happen to it.....it was out in the boonies for 40 years until the growth of ATL pushed the sub-divisions out there....guess what; the track didn't last 5 years after the developments went in....
This is happening on Martin....just a different vehicle.....
|
| Name: |
Spot Remover
-
|
|
| Subject: |
EP's private lake,sr question?
|
|
Date:
|
4/17/2008 1:13:08 PM
|
There are state and county noise ordinances. Now, to enforce, would probably be a different thing. I believe it ties in with personal rights and your's end where another begins. Not saying that much will or can be done about most of it. And no it is not EP's private lake. But remember, it also is not anyone else's. As for the drag racer, the pristine lake was there well before any of the hot boats, boom-boom music(?), and wake boats. Seems like he is making our point for us. (or maybe he is on our side, not quite sure).
Oh, well, can't we just all be satisfied with canoes? LOL
|
| Name: |
Spot Remover
-
|
|
| Subject: |
EP's private lake,sr question?
|
|
Date:
|
4/17/2008 1:42:47 PM
|
Excuse, but one more thought. How many 14 foot aluminum boats with small engines do you see on the lake now? Those fishermen have lost their rights to fish on the weekends, unless they want to be swamped or run over. Seems like they had rights at one time. Now they don't. But, they were here before the chaos we have now. Things have gone from a steady progression of folks losing their rights and many of you could care less.
|
| Name: |
Fester
-
|
|
| Subject: |
EP's private lake,sr question?
|
|
Date:
|
4/17/2008 2:06:55 PM
|
I'll hit both since one of them was kinda answered towards me.....
The Dallas drag strip was there for 40 years before the developers decided to build next door.....everyone knew it was there....there were signs on the roads leading to it...but they built next to it anyway....then "the noise bothered them" so guess what, the owners of the neighboring property had it shut down....same / same.....
MOST folks with 14ft Jon boats don't go out in the big water much at all.....MOST folks use them in the creeks, sloughs and up in the river for fishing....not the prime areas where you'd see a large boat such as The Rock or Kowaliga...
Those same 14ft Jon boats with old 2 stroke Johnny Rude's on them put 1/3 of the fuel put into the engine, into the water, unburned, through the exhaust....2 stroke motors are horribly in-efficient....I'd rather have wakes than gas in the water....even if this is the choice of conveyance on the lake it's damaging the eco-system with unburned fuel whether the boat is 14ft or 400ft....bad business...
|
| Name: |
UncleSam
-
|
|
| Subject: |
EP's private lake,sr question?
|
|
Date:
|
4/17/2008 2:11:50 PM
|
"Things have gone from a steady progression of folks losing their rights and many of you could care less."
Good point. The "they're taking our rights!!!" argument is quite popular on the board these days; these same people didn't care at all when it was the rights of others that were being lost. Now, though, it's a big deal, isn't it?
|
| Name: |
Spot Remover
-
|
|
| Subject: |
EP's private lake,sr question?
|
|
Date:
|
4/17/2008 2:58:56 PM
|
Let's see now, the aluminum boats should restrict their use to sloughs and up the creeks. The deeper we go on this, the less reasonable debate over rights becomes.
By the way, you are correct about the spillage of petro on some of the motors. Probably as bad environmentally as loss of natural shoreline caused by "certain" boats or certain boat operators.
|
| Name: |
Aussie77
-
|
|
| Subject: |
EP's private lake,sr question?
|
|
Date:
|
4/17/2008 4:47:42 PM
|
Spot Remover,
Which study are you speaking of that refers to boats exceeding 27 feet that are responsible for the loss of the lakes natural shoreline?
|
| Name: |
Aussie77
-
|
|
| Subject: |
EP's private lake,sr question?
|
|
Date:
|
4/17/2008 4:54:57 PM
|
How many fishing boats have you seen with big powerful engines?
How many small 16 or 18 foot ski boats have you seen with music towers that SHOULD sink the boat? I know I have seen many. In fact many years ago I had a boat with a loud stereo system. It no longer suits me, I grew into something different.
Guess what? Someone else still likes that. What's it to you? Your neighbor doesn't like the color of your house, should they be allowed to go to a board to make you change it? You get older and like drifting in a canoe over water skiing, should we make everyone stop water skiing?
It is an Alabama Public Lake...get over it! Let the public enjoy THEIR lake. If someone is blaring their music too loud and their is a noise ordinance, do something about it.
|
| Name: |
Spot Remover
-
|
|
| Subject: |
EP's private lake,sr question?
|
|
Date:
|
4/17/2008 4:59:21 PM
|
Huh?
|
| Name: |
Spot Remover
-
|
|
| Subject: |
EP's private lake,sr question?
|
|
Date:
|
4/17/2008 5:00:42 PM
|
In which post did I say anything about this?
|
| Name: |
F1Fan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Lifetime Laker aka idiot
|
|
Date:
|
4/17/2008 5:10:24 PM
|
"As for your boat, it is first and foremost YOUR responsibillity to secure YOUR WATERCRAFT against damage."
What a freaking idiot. I mean seriously, how can any moron capable even of walking upright actually write this?
|
| Name: |
Aussie77
-
|
|
| Subject: |
EP's private lake,sr question?
|
|
Date:
|
4/17/2008 5:51:22 PM
|
I will remind you of the post you wrote earlier:
"By the way, you are correct about the spillage of petro on some of the motors. Probably as bad environmentally as loss of natural shoreline caused by "certain" boats or certain boat operators."
How bad environmentally are these "certain boats"? What research have you been looking at that describes the damage that "these boats" do to Lake Martin's natural shoreline?
|
| Name: |
Spot Remover
-
|
|
| Subject: |
EP's private lake,sr question?
|
|
Date:
|
4/17/2008 6:25:56 PM
|
Mere observation tells me that the shoreline is affected (by all boat wakes). The bigger the wake, the more the damage. If I can find it, I can refer you to a study done on Lake Lanier. (shoreline damage, more shallow water near where the full pool line was, more silt in the shallow areas, and rocks that were near the shoreline now covered with clay and silt). Seems like common sense to me. And I still haven't said anything about the 27 foot limit. But, there needs to be a limit sooner or later. Aussie, what length limit would you suggest?
|
Oh It IS NO NICE TO HEAR HAPPINESS AND GOOD THOUGHTS COMING FROM EVERYONE'S MOUTHS! I appreciate the positive change in the air. There does not have to be ugliness to express our opinions. THIS IS WHY it Is great to be an AMERICAN! HAPPY FRIDAY EVE EVERYBODY! I'm looking out at this beautiful speck of God's creation with a cold one and life does not get any better than this. Enjoy!
|
| Name: |
Aussie77
-
|
|
| Subject: |
EP's private lake,sr question?
|
|
Date:
|
4/17/2008 8:47:02 PM
|
Spot Remover,
I actually would not reccommend a length limit BAN on boats to correct the wake issue. Oregan is actually doing the right thing. They took the complaints they received and have been doing the research on erosion and pollution issues but initially did elementary testing on different boats for wake and music levels for the complaints received about loud noise.
Lake Martin is not unlike most bodies of water that experience the same issues as we are all talking about on this board. Even though they had petitions and iseas to do many things they have chosen the route of enforcement and education. Their first step was reviewing if law enforcement was being adequately applied, it was not. Then the Marine Board and Law Enforcement conducted test on different boats and the wakes. The also measured noise levels from various distances.
Oregan has taken on a huge initiative to educate the public with banners, signs, mailers, free "wake water" bottles and merchandise communicating their message of "please don't wake me", flyers and signage at boat ramps. They are visiting dealers and encouraging them to pass along the "play away" message to boaters. The main message to be careful of wake around those that play.
As they are designed Wake Boards are the biggest offenders of the wake problem. They have the ability to get close to shorelines (unlike larger boats) at faster speeds and are designed to create wake. Making things worse are factory installed or after market ballast tanks.
Other places have shoreline restrictions to reduce wake. All these options plus more.
What I suggest is researching the problem. Doing some simple tests and coming up with some simple plans and options done by a party such as the marine police or a marine board or a non bias group. As the Oregan State Marine Board has tried to do in getting a working group of both land owners, boat owners and law enforcement together is get out the message. To boaters it is to be cautious. When in crowded areas operate your boats in a way that minimizes wake. To land owners it is to realize that boat owners have a legitimate claim to the water, it is public property.
|
| Name: |
LifeTime Laker
-
|
|
| Subject: |
EP's private lake,sr question?
|
|
Date:
|
4/17/2008 10:11:49 PM
|
I am going to jump in the fray here with some facts too Aussie. Enforcement is the key. Not studies or anything else. There are enough studies on wave action now to PROVE that the boats banned had little or no MORE impact on shore erosion than any other boat. A wave is the closest thing to perpetual motion that you will find on Earth. A wave looses virtually NO energy until acted upon by an out side force, i.e., land, other wave, wind, current, or even a boat (depending on ratio of boat to wave). For centuries sailors have told stories of rogue waves but were scoffed at. Even as late as the 70's and 80's computer simulations showed that a 100ft rogue was a 1 in 10,000 year event. Then came high powered sattelites that could actually record waves and in one 100 square mile area of the north atlantic four were recorded in a 10 day period. Waves are amazing!!
I say all that to make a point and that is the biggest problem with waves on LM is NOT boats, but the homeowners!! Why? It is simple, everyone wants a seawall so they pour a solid concrete wall, or build a solid wood wall. These walls serve as bumpers for waves. Every wave that hits one is bounced back into the lake, where it continues across the lake to be bounced back into the lake again, and again, and again. A boat can only create a wave ONCE, seawalls can bounce it around for the rest of the day!!
What is the answer? Simple, build different seawalls. APCO now pushes for riprap walls because they difuse more wave energy. They even require a layer of riprap along the bottom of solid walls because this helps difuse some of the energy also. Geostone walls are designed to difuse some energy also because the waves actually travel through the wall into the gravel behind them. It is real easy to sit back and blame the boats for the erosion, but the powers that be know what the real problem is. And then some ignorant folks like bob like to come along berate the folks at Karis Park for NOT having a seawall, and espuose the shoreline benifits of the boat ban. The reality is, it is just the oppisite. A natural shoreline is better for the lake than a solid seawall and boats cause less erosion than seawalls.
I know most of you are smart enough to understand this. PP has a post from yesterday where he speaks to waves also. I know he understands this concept. If I know it, then surely APCO knows it. So staying further away from a shoreline has little to no effect on decreasing erosion. building better seawalls, and getting boats on plane is the best prevention.
Maverick I saw you talking about pouring a concrete wall to replace your riprap. I would encourage you not to. I understand the hassle of washing riprap but I think you should look into having the riprap cinched down with chain link fence. I have seen this done. It works well and it would make a world of difference with that massive waterfront of yours. I can by no means tell you that you have too, or even that you should on my say so, but I think you should look into what I have said here. I think when you do, you will maybe have a diiferent outlook because I know you care about the lake.
It seems to me that if erosion is the real issue, the legislation should be on what type of seawall is permitted, not what is making the waves in the first place. As PP said, watch Kowliga Bay on a weekday afternoon with a 10 knot wind and very few boats, and then try to argue it is the boats that are causing the problem.
|
| Name: |
Fester
-
|
|
| Subject: |
question?
|
|
Date:
|
4/18/2008 8:05:21 AM
|
who's responsibility is it?
|
| Name: |
cg
-
|
|
| Subject: |
2 stroke's pollute
|
|
Date:
|
4/18/2008 9:13:45 AM
|
Twenty-five percent of the fuel and required oil that conventional two-strokes use most of it unburned is emitted directly into the water and air. According to the EPA, two-stroke engines discharge as much as 30 percent of their fuel and oil unburned directly into the water.
In the US, approximately 75 percent of all motorized boats and personal watercraft (14 million units) are powered by two-stroke engines.
Every year, marine two-stroke motors spill 15 times MORE oil and fuel into waterways than did the Exxon Valdez.
The EPA estimates that ONE HOUR of operation by a 70-horsepower two-stroke motor emits the same amount of hydrocarbon pollution as driving 5,000 miles in a modern automobile
|
| Name: |
Spot Remover
-
|
|
| Subject: |
EP's private lake,sr question?
|
|
Date:
|
4/18/2008 10:27:36 AM
|
Aussie, you and I need to sit down over a beer. My main concern with the size of the boat is safety and the size of the wake. As usual, operators create more damage than anything. Agree on the wake boats, too.
But, I'm still serious as to the length of boat that should be allowed on an inland lake such as Martin. What do people think?
|
| Name: |
Aussie77
-
|
|
| Subject: |
EP's private lake,sr question?
|
|
Date:
|
4/18/2008 11:25:50 AM
|
Spot Remover,
As the name implies..a good Aussie never turns down a cold one. Hope to see you out on the lake
|
| Name: |
Spot Remover
-
|
|
| Subject: |
question?
|
|
Date:
|
4/19/2008 9:13:38 AM
|
Good morning Fester. It is the responsibility of the the fools that ride by the docks to aviod wakes that cause enough of a problem for special docks to have to be implemented. That's exactly when the operator's rights begin to interfere with the homeowner's rights. The bundle of rights protected by our jurisprudence system are based upon what is an acceptable application of what is normal. Sorry, but "read up" and have a good day.
|
| Name: |
Fester
-
|
|
| Subject: |
question?
|
|
Date:
|
4/19/2008 8:02:53 PM
|
So your saying that you don't know how to tie the boat up to keep it off a dock and prevent damage....you'd rather blame someone else for any damage than to take steps to prevent said damage yourself....
The wind has always been worse on that lake than a wake....I've seen 8-10 foot rollers during storms that I was caught in when I worked at Kowaliga doing boat recoveries.....you have to know how to properly secure a vessel to prevent damage....if you don't know how ask....it's not rocket science.....but then you'd have no one to vent your anger at over the damage caused by not securing your property....take care of whats yours...no one else will.....
|
| Name: |
jalcz
-
|
|
| Subject: |
When push comes to shove...
|
|
Date:
|
4/20/2008 1:25:46 AM
|
I think the law states that the operator of a boat is responsible for the damage caused by his wake. I don't know if there is an "idiot tied his boat up wrong" escape clause. (But maybe there should be!)
|
| Name: |
jrh3
-
|
|
| Subject: |
When push comes to shove...
|
|
Date:
|
4/21/2008 7:42:23 AM
|
Yu must be wrong .......the all and knowing LTL said so ... He is the law on this lake and others
|
| Name: |
LifeTime Laker
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Lifetime Laker aka idiot
|
|
Date:
|
4/21/2008 11:40:58 AM
|
Apparently I missed this post for a few days now. Fester asked the most pertinent question, Whose responsibillity is it? I guess you think somebody else should be responsible for tying up your boats. What government agency wuold you think should come by and tie your boat up? I bet you can't wait to cast your vote for Obama too.
"Better to remain silent and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt".
|
| Name: |
LifeTime Laker
-
|
|
| Subject: |
When push comes to shove...
|
|
Date:
|
4/21/2008 11:45:18 AM
|
Yes jr, there are laws the make you responsibillity for any damage your wake does, but if you live on a lake and don't secure your property properly it isn't anybody elses fault but your own. Now if someones wake damages your pier, you may have an argument. Or if you are anchored or just drifting and someones wakes washes over your boat, or capsizes you, then you have been damaged.
But I want to thank you for acknowledging my omnisence!!
|
| Name: |
Pier Pressure
-
|
|
| Subject: |
EP's private lake,sr question?
|
|
Date:
|
4/21/2008 12:19:15 PM
|
That was a very good post. Drive by (on the water) Wind Creek and see their shoreline erosion walls. They are angled with the "Natural" lay of the land"
One thing I would like to point out. Someone mentioned "Natural Shoreline". I get to see the natural shoreline of Martin on occasion, and unless you are use to 54 degree water at 80 plus feet deep, do not talk to me about "Natural Shoreline". Man made this lake, and it is completely unnatural to attempt to keep the shoreline "in check" to begin with.
Google the Mississippi river delta and look at the satelite pictures. Look at the Alabama River between Ft Touloue and Montgomery. There are many areas where the river use to flow that are now "Natural" lakes.
The Pacific Ocean in California has cliffs that erode at a certain rate each year.
These are "Natural Shorelines", and ALL are affected by NATURAL WAVE ACTION / HYDROLIC FORCE"
Lakes all throughout the U.S. are filling with silt from the feeder streams. The Colorado river has numerous fish species becoming extinct because by daming up the rivers they have changed the "Natural Shoreline", annual water temp and other factors.
I scuba dive in lake Martin. The erosion that I witness is constant from the current shoreline, through 80 feet depth. Waves only affect of the wave height x 2 (or the amplitude of the wave). So if you have a maximum 4 ft wave, you can only have a maximum affect of 8 feet vertical to the shoreline.
When dam was built they cut trees off at the surface. Everyone witnessed thie year that the original stumps are exposed. They are exposed at a constant rate, regardless of where they are on the lake and regardless of how much wave action the particular part of the lake is. The height of these stumps is constant from the current surface to the deepest points of the lake.
So, I submit as a hypothesis (observed/educated GUESS) that the lake erosion is not a factor of the surface wave action, but a result of top soil dissolving and simply being carried away over time.
One factor I submit it the fact that as the water was going down last year you could put your foot 2 to 4 foot deep into the mud (similar "Silt" observations made at 80 plus feet deep). There were pictures posted of a young boy almost waist deep in the "Silt". Once the sun hit this "Silt" and it dried it became hard enough once more to walk on. So, I suggest that the top soil is "dissolving", not being broken down by wave action.
Also, if you have ever walked the beach (actual beach, at the ocean) in a time of low tide after a storm you see the sand creates "shelves" as I call them. 3 to 6 foot drop offs caused by wave action. When the water is down in the winter, is a similar "shelf" created on Lake Martin? The answer is "No". When you go down to the average winter depth, can you see any "drop off" caused by boats or other wave action? The answer is no, there are not 2 distinct shorelines, and no one has to build a winter "Sea wall", because the only reason is to protect "Property". Mother Nature does not care how pretty your shoreline is, as she will arrange it as she pleases... I like the idea of natural lay of the land type erosion prevention techniques. Wonder why no one is marketing these?
|
|
New Post
Search
Lake Martin Topics Forum
Reply
»
Alabama Lakes
»
Lake Martin
Login
|
Home
