« Can't sleep, waxing not so eloquently about the North Shore Plan! | Main | A tour of the Kamloops Brewery... »

June 26, 2008


Murray Weeres

I think it is not within the city's mandate to engage in this sort of regulation. As well I think it opens the city up to potential unnecessary liability. Signage and education are probably more appropriate.


I don’t think I like the idea of an outright ban, however this may be a good idea. I can think of a few reasons as a long time boater on the river:

1)It’s never a good idea to be towing around launches and Pioneer and Valleyview are in this area. I wouldn’t say put an outright ban on it that would make the city liable, but maybe put up signs suggesting a now tow or slow speed zone. It’s just good boating manners… do you know how frustrating it is when a wakeboard or ski boat goes by within 25 feet of you when you are trying to get your boat on the trailer? Sometime people just don’t think about that.
2)There is really bad undertow at the native school corner
3)Father up the river near valley view the river is very narrow and has a lot of big rocks up against the steep banks, not too safe for towing.
4)The Dallas area is nice and wide and very safe, with tonnes of room.

Myself I don’t tow a lot of people in that area anyways for these reasons, so I think signs suggesting this would be welcomed by much of the boating community.


There are several reasons that the City should not try to put such bans in place:
1) already considered in your article, is the fact that liability will rest on the City's shoulders should something go awry, signs notwithstanding. As a result, any and every accident on the water will probably result in a lawsuit against the city, something the taxpayers probably do not want their tax dollars paying for.

2) this will open the doors for all sorts of other legislation becoming necessary to ensure 'safety' (i.e. cover the city's butt with respect to litigation), resulting in many more restrictions coming online that are not in the best interests of the taxpayers. I am referring to the popular activity of floating down the river on a tube, that I see scores of teens engaging in every summer. This harmless, social, and fun activity would likely be next on the chopping block of activities, resulting in one less activity for the youth of our city to engage in, and possibly resulting in them turning to perhaps less harmless, social, and fun activities as a replacement.

3) Enforcement seems to involve more than just signage. What would be required is a regular patrol, which will cost money in manpower, fuel, cost of a boat with upkeep....again, an unnecessary cost, given the seemingly low numbers of accidents that occur on the river from year to year.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner