Noise Law change - ACTION NEEDED NOW by all boaters

[C-2]

Alright, now that everybody is back from the zooÂ…
Everybody has been venting about the ever-changing noise restriction laws, so hereÂ’s an opportunity to do something about it. Support is needed by all boaters, regardless of location or state.
TAKE THE TIME TO AT LEAST SEND AN EMAIL IN OPPOSITION.
Please don’t think “the other guy” will take care of this…you are the other guy! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: It only takes a few minutes to send an email. A few minutes of everybody’s time NOW can help save a lot of frustration, confusion and money later.
The link allows you to send an email in support, opposition, or you can add your own comments. The link also allows you to send the email marked “anonymous”. For those boating brothers (and sisters) that are outside of California, you can help too by using the “anonymous” option.
If anybody wants to draft a boiler plate letter that can be cut and pasted into the comments section, that would be even better.
For those who really want to drive the message home, you might consider sending two emails; The first you should identify at least your street address and zip code so that when you send the email it will be directed to your AssemblymanÂ’s correct district. For the second email, you might consider keying in the city of Torrance and/or the zip code of 90501. The authoring Assemblyman might take a bit more notice if he sees a lot of opposition in his own assembly district.
Here is a reprint of the mail I received from James Thompson, a bass fisherman who headed up the effort to allow boating on Diamond Valley Lake.
---------------------------------------------------
Subject: "New outboard noise pollution laws in California"
Hi everyone, it has been a long time since the last post, I have not done much fishing lately but I do have a subject that will affect ALL boaters in California. There is a new bill currently going through the state senate that will limit the noise level of all non-commercial boats. The bill is AB1555 and will require all boats to measure no more than 88db at the shore. The new test will be performed while the boat is at the dock from a distance of 1 meter(The distance I am not 100% on and can not get a clarification). This will make any boat without exhaust below the water line to fail, most 2-stroke outboards fail, even some v-8's that have under water exhaust but poor engine insulation fail.
This bill has been read twice and passed the first reading 13-0 and the second 17-1. Everyone needs to contact their local senator and let them know that the new regulations are ridiculous. The bill was written by Senator Nakano and states it was written to reduce complaints of noise pollution in residential areas close to the water. If you enjoy leaving the dock at 4 in the morning you should contact your senator and let them know what you think.
The below link will take you to a site to make comments on the bill.
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/legcomment/legcomment.asp?bill_number=ab_1555&author=nakano
-----------------------------------------------------------
The actual AB1555 bill can be found at:
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm
LetÂ’s keep bouncing this thread to top so that we get a good response.

[91nordic29]

back to the top

[carbonmarine]

This bill is not fair. This is put forth and into motion by the BlueWater Org. in San Franciso. Their many attempts to block all watersports and BLM land use for recration is uterrly selfish, documented. Noise laws do not protect people, they are impetus to future actions by this group.
This is just not right and extrememly un-American to take away the freedom of use ( land or ocean ) as a right of many to serve the few....

[carbonmarine]

Here is the group responsibile.....
Tehse guys are totyal eath nazis & they are ornagized .......
http://www.bluewaternetwork.org/

[Rexone]

There's a thread already going on the California part of this subject in Hot Boats
Here is the Link (http://forums.***boat.net/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=005200)

[PlayTime]

Just did my oppose yuk

[Wet Dream]

Ok, I did my part.

[C-2]

ttt

[Napanutt]

I sent my negative comments alog! burningm

[Keith E. Sayre]

Sometimes we giggle and grin when these organizations pick on jetskis at distant lakes
but this is getting serious. These folks are
extremely well organized, they have a ton of
resources and money and they're retired folks with
nothing better to do. We need to do our part
because we're next.
Keith Sayre
Conquest Boats
Lake Havasu City
928-680-1400

[mud duck]

I think Minnesota is currently at 82 db from 50 feet behind the boat. How do you quiet down a blown 454 with headers to 82 db? frown

[Essex502]

What really irks me is that I cannot view the J2005 standard from SAE. They make you PAY $50 or so to get the standard. If this is to be law then we should be able to download the standard for FREE!
Questions:
1) The standard says "stationary" does that mean in the water or out of it? In the water exhaust is below my swim step and thus under water. That being said, I am a lot quieter in the water than out.
2) What measuring equipment is used? Specifically. And...how is it calibrated?
Be thankfull...so far it looks like it might be a "fixit" ticket where in some states violation seems to be a misdomeanor punishable by jail time!
F$cking tree huggers.

[NeoBurn]

If we could take a pool to pay my bail I'll take down that site for good.
burningm burningm burningm burningm

[SVO 540]

Just submitted my comments opposing this bill.

[roostwear]

While emailing a representative may seem like the thing to do, don't you think getting marine organizations behind us will have more impact on the legislature? They're NOT!
http://www.boating-industry.com/news.asp?mode=4&N_ID=39797

[Robbie Racer]

I just submitted my opposing comments as well. R/R

[schiada96]

did my part

[Mr.Havasu]

Me too!

[Essex502]

Without paid lobbyists not "jack" will get done. How do you think the "huggers" do it. Lobbyists. Donations. Petitions. Organization.

[roostwear]

Rexone, with you being on the SCMA board of directors, I assume you would know if this topic has been reviewed. What is SCMA's position on this?

[Rexone]

The SCMA opposes the California Bill. See my link above to the other thread where I've posted all the detail. thanx :)

[Thunderbutt]

Where do the people that sell the mufflers stand?
BIG BUCKS
They have it both ways, they sell Hi-performance parts and equipment, and then they sell you a way to quite it down.

[C-2]

:)

[eliminatedsprinter]

I sent my comment and oppose. I'm also spreading the word to all other boaters, that I know, who are not on this board.
It might be good to print off a few comments and sort of make flyers and stick them on the doors of houses we see in our areas with boats.

[eliminatedsprinter]

I'm wasting a post just to put this back on top of the board, because it is important.

[OGShocker]

Done. They will take care of really important issues when pig_flyi

[OGShocker]

Stinky boats have rights too!

[BP1330]

Sent mine oppose!!!!!!!!
burningm burningm burningm burningm burningm burningm burningm

[BP1330]

Sent mine oppose!!!!!!!!
I am opposed to such a sound restriction on boats. I grew up going to the local lakes and rivers and have very fond memories of waking up to the sound of high performace boats in the morning. Kind of an alarm clock you don''t have to set. My friends and I still enjoy seeing and listening to these boats. Not to mention if this bill passed all of our boats would fail the test. If this bill did pass it would force us not use our boats on CA water ways and to register our boats in AZ or other states with out such restrictions. This would hurt the economy for places like Lake Elsinore, Lake Perris and the overall economy of the State with most boats switching their registratiation to AZ or other states. Also as both a police officer and a memeber of the USCG this bill if passed would be very subjective and difficult to enforce. If your could please take a moment and veiw some of the posts on ***boat.com you will see that the oppisition to such a bill is very HIGH! Please oppose this bill.
burningm burningm burningm burningm burningm burningm burningm

[OGShocker]

WHAT?..... WHHHAAAAAT!?!
JK.. Just sending it back to the top!

[mike37]

sent my opose

[mike37]

Rexone:
There's a thread already going on the California part of this subject in Hot Boats
Here is the Link (http://forums.***boat.net/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=005200) the a holes that voted yes
if one is in your district email him directly
Maldonado is in my district suprised me he voted yes
AYES
****
Berg Bermudez Calderon Canciamilla
Chan Chavez Chu Cohn
Corbett Correa Diaz Dutra
Firebaugh Frommer Goldberg Hancock
Jerome Horton Jackson Kehoe Koretz
Laird Leno Levine Lieber
Liu Longville Lowenthal Maldonado
Matthews Montanez Mullin Nakano
Nation Negrete McLeod Nunez Oropeza
Pacheco Parra Pavley Reyes
Ridley-Thomas Salinas Simitian Steinberg
Vargas Wiggins Wolk Wyland
Yee Wesson
folow Rexone link and you can find links to al assimbly members web pages

[VD CRUISER]

Sent my opposition in. I too have been enjoying hot boating for 35+ years. Its one of the few freedoms we have left to express ourselves.

[burbanite]

C-2:
Support is needed by all boaters, regardless of location or state.
The link also allows you to send the email marked “anonymous”. For those boating brothers (and sisters) that are outside of California, you can help too by using the “anonymous” option.
Done.

[eliminatedsprinter]

mike37:
Rexone:
There's a thread already going on the California part of this subject in Hot Boats
Here is the Link (http://forums.***boat.net/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=005200) the a holes that voted yes
if one is in your district email him directly
Maldonado is in my district suprised me he voted yes
AYES
****
Berg Bermudez Calderon Canciamilla
Chan Chavez Chu Cohn
Corbett Correa Diaz Dutra
Firebaugh Frommer Goldberg Hancock
Jerome Horton Jackson Kehoe Koretz
Laird Leno Levine Lieber
Liu Longville Lowenthal Maldonado
Matthews Montanez Mullin Nakano
Nation Negrete McLeod Nunez Oropeza
Pacheco Parra Pavley Reyes
Ridley-Thomas Salinas Simitian Steinberg
Vargas Wiggins Wolk Wyland
Yee Wesson
folow Rexone link and you can find links to al assimbly members web pages Democrats. devil
When will people see the correlation between dumb laws and democrats :confused: ? pig_flyi
[ May 30, 2003, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: eliminatedsprinter ]

[eliminatedsprinter]

People from out of Ca should also use this link and comment that they will not spend their tourist dollers here etc...

[HBLavey]

Sent my opposition in! There's nothing like waking up to that first blown big block on the water! DAMN TREE HUGGERS :mad:

[eliminatedsprinter]

Back to the top for this one.

[C-2]

ttt

[Boatcop]

If this bill did pass it would force us not use our boats on CA water ways and to register our boats in AZ or other states with out such restrictions. I can't say whether I support or oppose the new standards. I don't know what impact they'll have as yet.
One thing I do know is that almost every state, including California, has noise retrictions. A lot of people think that this is a "new" law and prior to this bill, there were no restrictions.
Here's the present law in California and Arizona:
California:
654. The exhaust of every internal combustion engine used on any motorized recreational vessel shall be effectively muffled at all times to prevent any excessive or unusual noise and as may be necessary to comply with Section 654.05.
This section does not apply to motorized recreational vessels competing under a local public entity or United States Coast Guard
permit in a regatta, in a boat race, while on trial runs, or while on official trials for speed records during the time and in the
designated area authorized by the permit. In addition, this section does not apply to motorized recreational vessels preparing for a race or regatta if authorized by a permit issued by the local entity having jurisdiction over the area where the preparations occur.
654.05. (a) No person shall operate any motorized recreational vessel in or upon the inland waters of this state in a manner that
exceeds the following noise levels:
(1) For engines manufactured before January 1, 1976, a noise level of 86 dbA measured at a distance of 50 feet from the motorized recreational vessel.
(2) For engines manufactured on or after January 1, 1976, and before January 1, 1978, a noise level of 84 dbA measured at a distance of 50 feet from the motorized recreational vessel.
(3) For engines manufactured on or after January 1, 1978, a noise level of 82 dbA measured at a distance of 50 feet from the motorized recreational vessel.
(b) Testing procedures employed to determine noise levels shall be in accordance with the Exterior Sound Level Measurement Procedure
For Pleasure Motorboats of the Society of Automotive Engineers in its recommended practice designated SAE J34. The department may, by
regulation, revise the measurement procedure when deemed necessary to adjust to advances in technology.
(c) This section does not apply to motorized recreational vessels competing under a local public entity or United States Coast Guard
permit in a regatta, in a boat race, while on trial runs, or while on official trials for speed records during the time and in the
designated area authorized by the permit. In addition, this section does not apply to motorized recreational vessels preparing for a
race or regatta if authorized by a permit issued by the local entity having jurisdiction over the area where the preparations occur.
654.06. No person shall sell or offer for sale at retail any internal combustion engine for use on any motorized recreational vessel which, when operated, exceeds the following noise levels:
(a) For engines manufactured on or after January 1, 1974, and before January 1, 1976, a noise level of 86 dbA measured at a distance of 50 feet from the motorized recreational vessel.
(b) For engines manufactured on or after January 1, 1976, and before January 1, 1978, a noise level of 84 dbA measured at a distance of 50 feet from the motorized recreational vessel.
(c) For engines manufactured on or after January 1, 1978, a noise level of 82 dbA measured at a distance of 50 feet from the motorized recreational vessel.
And Arizona:
5-336. Muffling devices
A. Every motor driven watercraft shall at all times be equipped with effective equipment, in good working order and in constant operation, to prevent excessive or unusual noise except as provided in subsection C.
B. It is not the intent of this section to prohibit the use of any type of exhaust system or exhaust device, including those systems and devices which do not discharge water with the exhaust gases, if such system or device complies with subsection A of this section.
C. All watercraft actually competing in a regatta, boat race or official trials for speed records, and within the time limits authorized by the sanctioning body of such event are exempt from this section. Permits designating place and time limits are required and shall be issued by the department prior to the testing of watercraft on the water when sufficient evidence is provided by the applicant that such watercraft is actually entered in an event sanctioned by a national or regional organization having jurisdiction over the event.
R12-4-516. Watercraft Sound Level Restriction
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a watercraft upon the waters of this state under any condition or in any manner that the watercraft emits a sound level in excess of 86 decibels on the "A" weighted scale when measured from a distance of 50 feet or more from the watercraft.
B. This Section shall not apply to watercraft operated under permits issued in accordance to A.R.S. § 5-336(C).
I haven't seen a side by side comparison of how the propsed new levels and testing methds compare with those already in place, But seminars I've attended have said that there really isn't much difference in overall sound levels betweeen the two. The new SAE J2005 standards is meant to standarize testing and measurement techniques by outlining exactly how the tests are conducted.
The old method under SAE J34 was essentially estimate 50 feet, and point the device.
I really would like to see some comparisons of noise readings under the new and old standards.
And just for info, all boating regulations, except those that deal with defacing serial numbers, fictitious registration, etc, only apply when the boat is on the water. So any testing would take place there, and not while it is trailered or on land.

[Kindsvater Flat]

What about pre 74 vessels? My flat still runs the 440 it came with in 72 and the original O/T headers.
What would be the decibal limit for earlier boats?

[Boatcop]

What about pre 74 vessels? My flat still runs the 440 it came with in 72 and the original O/T headers.
Current:
(1) For engines manufactured before January 1, 1976, a noise level of 86 dbA measured at a distance of 50 feet from the motorized recreational vessel.
Proposed:
(1) For engines manufactured before January 1, 1993, a noise level of 90 dB(A)
when subjected to the Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice SAE J2005 (Stationary Sound Level Measurement Procedure for
Pleasure Motorboats).

[Essex502]

What really sucks is you can't get a copy of the SAE spec (J2005) without paying SAE $50 or so. You'd think that if a state is trying to make a new law or change an old one it would be MANDATORY to make the SAE test available for a nominal fee to all interested parties.

[Rexone]

Essex I will see if I can come up with a copy of J2005 test. I think we probably have it at SCMA.
As Alan stated the new tests aren't alot different noise level wise (although they are a little tougher is my understanding), the main thing is the new J2005 is much more "enforceable" because the old J34 test procedure was pretty vague at the 50 foot measurement because it could easily be argued and defeated that the test wasn't administered properly. Therefore few enforcement agencies chose to enforce it because they weren't really equipped to take measurements at the 50 foot distance the test specs require (in terms of a measured course to test in).
The new J2005 test though does not share this enforcement difficulty. One test is 39" (one meter) off the transom at idle at the dock (very easy to administer). Another is from the shoreline at "any distance". Also easy to administer. As I mentioned in the other thread on this subject, Bob Brown who is working on this issue with the SCMA, did an impromtu and informal test at the Hot Boat trials and only one out of twenty plus boats he tested passed the dock test he did with the dBA meter at 39".
Again this is my understanding based on the info I've been supplied with.

[eliminatedsprinter]

It is the 1 meter measuring point that bothers me. As most through hull, many OBs, and, of course, all over the transom exhausts will fail at that close dist.
I also can foresee some serious congestion at the launch ramps if this is enforced on a large scale.
[ June 02, 2003, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: eliminatedsprinter ]

[Essex502]

Rexone:
Essex I will see if I can come up with a copy of J2005 test. I think we probably have it at SCMA.
As Alan stated the new tests aren't alot different noise level wise (although they are a little tougher is my understanding), the main thing is the new J2005 is much more "enforceable" because the old J34 test procedure was pretty vague at the 50 foot measurement because it could easily be argued and defeated that the test wasn't administered properly. Therefore few enforcement agencies chose to enforce it because they weren't really equipped to take measurements at the 50 foot distance the test specs require (in terms of a measured course to test in).
The new J2005 test though does not share this enforcement difficulty. One test is 39" (one meter) off the transom at idle at the dock (very easy to administer). Another is from the shoreline at "any distance". Also easy to administer. As I mentioned in the other thread on this subject, Bob Brown who is working on this issue with the SCMA, did an impromtu and informal test at the Hot Boat trials and only one out of twenty plus boats he tested passed the dock test he did with the dBA meter at 39".
Again this is my understanding based on the info I've been supplied with. I'd be curious if anyone from the SCMA is willing to invest in the decibal meter that is specified by the J2005 procedure. It would be interesting for SCMA to do some more impromptu testing - like spend a weekend at a launch ramp in Havasu - of willing participants. I can't see how my exhaust which vents below the water line could possible be that loud. At rest and at idle my motor isn't noisy at all.
Another interesting issue will be the proper calibration of the meter. This is usually a good point to challenge this kind of enforcement as the equipment is rarely kept in "laboratory" type environs.

[VillainDave]

Well I've done my part I have some friends that arr gonna do the same!
Heck! It just might work!

[BILLY.B]

Did my part...NOISE LIMITATIONS SUCK!!!. It's not like your running for hours and hours at a time. The money we save on noise tickets could be put towards U-HAULS to move the people that are complaing to the middle of Death Valley, seeing as the love the desert so much :D

[Essex502]

Dave...I sent two...one from home and one from work having a coworker who's a wanna-be boater and also lives in Torrance to put his name on it.
Some people will moan and groan about issues like this but fail to expend the effort to actually do something. I have no respect for them.

[miller19j]

Boatcop:
What about pre 74 vessels? My flat still runs the 440 it came with in 72 and the original O/T headers.
Current:
(1) For engines manufactured before January 1, 1976, a noise level of 86 dbA measured at a distance of 50 feet from the motorized recreational vessel.
Proposed:
(1) For engines manufactured before January 1, 1993, a noise level of 90 dB(A)
when subjected to the Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice SAE J2005 (Stationary Sound Level Measurement Procedure for
Pleasure Motorboats).
Am I reading this correctly? It looks as if the new standards are more relaxed than the current. Or are they measuring 90db at the 1 meter distance?
I donÂ’t see how you could enforce such a thing. So many variables affect the decibel reading. With all the backscatter from the water and other ambient noises it is almost impossible to quantify what is really coming from the engine being tested. It would be interesting to know how exactly the tests are going to be performed.

[eliminatedsprinter]

RiverDave:
I can't believe more people aren't commenting on this thread. Out of 5000 members on ***boat, I thought 6000 would've made a comment and sent an e-mail.
RD I could not agree more. Lets keep this one on the top of the board until it gets a ton of posts.

[eliminatedsprinter]

C-2:
Alright, now that everybody is back from the zoo…
Everybody has been venting about the ever-changing noise restriction laws, so here’s an opportunity to do something about it. Support is needed by all boaters, regardless of location or state.
TAKE THE TIME TO AT LEAST SEND AN EMAIL IN OPPOSITION.
Please don’t think “the other guy� will take care of this…you are the other guy! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: It only takes a few minutes to send an email. A few minutes of everybody’s time NOW can help save a lot of frustration, confusion and money later.
The link allows you to send an email in support, opposition, or you can add your own comments. The link also allows you to send the email marked “anonymous�. For those boating brothers (and sisters) that are outside of California, you can help too by using the “anonymous� option.
If anybody wants to draft a boiler plate letter that can be cut and pasted into the comments section, that would be even better.
For those who really want to drive the message home, you might consider sending two emails; The first you should identify at least your street address and zip code so that when you send the email it will be directed to your Assemblyman’s correct district. For the second email, you might consider keying in the city of Torrance and/or the zip code of 90501. The authoring Assemblyman might take a bit more notice if he sees a lot of opposition in his own assembly district.
Here is a reprint of the mail I received from James Thompson, a bass fisherman who headed up the effort to allow boating on Diamond Valley Lake.
---------------------------------------------------
Subject: "New outboard noise pollution laws in California"
Hi everyone, it has been a long time since the last post, I have not done much fishing lately but I do have a subject that will affect ALL boaters in California. There is a new bill currently going through the state senate that will limit the noise level of all non-commercial boats. The bill is AB1555 and will require all boats to measure no more than 88db at the shore. The new test will be performed while the boat is at the dock from a distance of 1 meter(The distance I am not 100% on and can not get a clarification). This will make any boat without exhaust below the water line to fail, most 2-stroke outboards fail, even some v-8's that have under water exhaust but poor engine insulation fail.
This bill has been read twice and passed the first reading 13-0 and the second 17-1. Everyone needs to contact their local senator and let them know that the new regulations are ridiculous. The bill was written by Senator Nakano and states it was written to reduce complaints of noise pollution in residential areas close to the water. If you enjoy leaving the dock at 4 in the morning you should contact your senator and let them know what you think.
The below link will take you to a site to make comments on the bill.
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/legcomment/legcomment.asp?bill_number=ab_1555&author=nakano
-----------------------------------------------------------
The actual AB1555 bill can be found at:
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm
Let’s keep bouncing this thread to top so that we get a good response. There seems to be some confusion here. :confused: Some have commented that, for some, the standards may be relaxed under the new bill.
It is my understanding that there are 2 seperate proposals and 1 is far more reasonable than the other. I believe we are responding here to AB1555 and it is my understanding it is the stricter of the 2.

[Havasu Cig]

Done

[eliminatedsprinter]

Rexone:
There's a thread already going on the California part of this subject in Hot Boats
Here is the Link (http://forums.***boat.net/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=005200) This link has the bill in question.
However, it does not mention the dist at which the sound will be measured. It is the 1 meter dist that is the worst part. Judging from the collection of far left wingers who are supporting this you can pretty much bet it will be tough on the likes of us eek! and go a long way to please the eco-nazies devil .

[Unchained]

I've had a blown tunnel jet for years and have gotten my share of noise tickets but my view on this is different from most of the others on here.
If your boat is open header and you like the noise, Fine. But what about the guy with the family cruiser who does not like the noise? Should he have to listen to it to appease you?
Some boats are not that bad on noise but other guys still insist on running open header and it's real loud. I've heard it echo off the hills before in some places.
I know that the loudest engine can be quieted down enough to meet the noise laws by running the end of the exhaust pipe under water but most guys would refuse to do that because it doesn't look cool.
There has to be some give and take here.
You can't expect to make everyone listen to your loud boat and like it.
The noise laws WILL win out in the end whether you like it or not..
And thats one of the reasons that I sold the blower and the Bassetts and went with turbo's.

[Warlock28]

Done!! Everyone should be involved!! Protect our sport!! :rolleyes:

[uclahater]

RiverDave:
I can't believe more people aren't commenting on this thread. Out of 5000 members on ***boat, I thought 6000 would've made a comment and sent an e-mail.
RD Put the post in every forum and I bet you'll get better response. I agree with Billy send them to the middle of the desert. burningm

[Havasu Cig]

UC,
I have Corsa's and it quiets the motors down alot. Not every boat can run under the water exhaust due to hull design. If you tried to run under the water exhauset on our boat it would have to go through the bottom of the hull.
I also wonder what they are going to do about commercial vessels. If you go down to San Diego Harbor you will see some large commercial boats that would not past the new proposed laws.

[eliminatedsprinter]

Unchained:
I've had a blown tunnel jet for years and have gotten my share of noise tickets but my view on this is different from most of the others on here.
If your boat is open header and you like the noise, Fine. But what about the guy with the family cruiser who does not like the noise? Should he have to listen to it to appease you?
Some boats are not that bad on noise but other guys still insist on running open header and it's real loud. I've heard it echo off the hills before in some places.
I know that the loudest engine can be quieted down enough to meet the noise laws by running the end of the exhaust pipe under water but most guys would refuse to do that because it doesn't look cool.
There has to be some give and take here.
You can't expect to make everyone listen to your loud boat and like it.
The noise laws WILL win out in the end whether you like it or not..
And thats one of the reasons that I sold the blower and the Bassetts and went with turbo's. Give and take? What are they giving?
I'm not a big fan of super loud pipes, but many here are and I am willing to stick up for their right to pursue what pleases them.
Some people feel that loud boats diminish their pleasure while they enjoy their time by the lake etc.. It galls me that they think that they have the right to use a gun (Laws that are enforced by police) to ban someone elses pleasure in order to enhance their own. burningm
Besides, the politicians and the group that are supporting this bill are some of the most narrow minded and sneaky people on earth and you can bet your house this will hurt more than just those with open headers. Stick your ear 1 meter behind any through hull exhaust (or V6 OB) and give it some throttle. It's loud down there that close to the pipe. eek!
[ June 03, 2003, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: eliminatedsprinter ]

[RaysonKid]

miller19j:
Boatcop:
What about pre 74 vessels? My flat still runs the 440 it came with in 72 and the original O/T headers.
Current:
(1) For engines manufactured before January 1, 1976, a noise level of 86 dbA measured at a distance of 50 feet from the motorized recreational vessel.
Proposed:
(1) For engines manufactured before January 1, 1993, a noise level of 90 dB(A)
when subjected to the Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice SAE J2005 (Stationary Sound Level Measurement Procedure for
Pleasure Motorboats).
Am I reading this correctly? It looks as if the new standards are more relaxed than the current. Or are they measuring 90db at the 1 meter distance?
I donÂ’t see how you could enforce such a thing. So many variables affect the decibel reading. With all the backscatter from the water and other ambient noises it is almost impossible to quantify what is really coming from the engine being tested. It would be interesting to know how exactly the tests are going to be performed. Good luck with this one,
We have been fighting this up here on our lakes.
One of them had us come out with a boat and did testing with a db meter.
The boat was an old Howard with thru hull exhaust. It pretty much failed at idle sitting at the dock with the meter about 8 ft behind.
But out running it did great from a distance of about 100 ft.
We asked the same questions about noise. Its not a perfect science.
Each lake, county and agency can pretty much do what ever.
Also depends on if the meter has been properly calibrated.
Posting to a web site may help.
But attend a meeting, and face these people...
The ones trying to pass the laws have no idea.

[Unchained]

Havasu Cig
[QB] UC,
Not every boat can run under the water exhaust due to hull design. If you tried to run under the water exhauset on our boat it would have to go through the bottom of the hull.
]I've seen performance boats with through transom exhaust that had a 90 degree elbow that got the exhaust down into the water while idleing and it was real quiet, almost silent. When planed out it was louder but it was still aiming down and was a lot quieter than straight out.
I seen a guy here in Mi that has a 27' single engine cat and had a piece of flexible tube on the end of the through trans exhaust that dangled down into the water. It looked bad but was functional at quiteing the noise.
I know another guy with a blown flatbottom who has a set of stainless car mufflers attached to the headers and it works real good but their large and un-racey looking.
I'm the kind of person that believes that where there's a will there's a way.
We're not trying to reinvent the wheel, just quiet the noise but someone who refuses to adjust their exhaust at all is not doing anything to help the situation.
I know guys who refuse to do anything other than open header or zoomies and they just take the chance that they won't be ticketed every time out and then bitch if they get a ticket. That attitude just fuels the noise restriction laws.

[Reaper1]

Opposed!

[Boatcop]

Give and take? What are they giving?
"They" are giving you a place to go boating. The government who passes these laws (for the benefit of ALL boaters) is the same governemnt that provides the places for you to go boating.
Who do you think built all those dams to form all these lakes in the middle of the desert? Or provides launching areas for you to enjoy? Guess who? THE GOVERNMENT!
The purposes of those dams and lakes is for:
a. Potable Water Storage
b. Flood control
c. Hydro-electric power generation
d. Irrigation water storage and delivery
and at the bottom of the list
e. Recreation
The electric officials that expended funds to build these lakes also have a duty to protect them, the wildlife that live there, and the people who use them.
It would be within their rights as the stewards of the waterways to ban all boating completely on "their" waters.
When enough people complain to those officials that there is a problem, they listen and take steps to correct that problem. Whether the problem is noise from loud boats or turds floating around at the Sandbar, they do what the people who elected them tell them to do.
They pass laws making it illegal to take a dump in the river, and laws requiring an effective muffler on your boat.
What are they giving? The ability to enjoy our recreational activities on our PUBLIC waterways.
Wanna run loud 'cause it sounds cool? Go to Firebird or some other private lake that allows it.
For every one of you who wants your boat to be loud so you can be "cool", there are 100 people who think you're just annoying.
Don't like the laws? Change them!

[eliminatedsprinter]

Unchained
What you are saying is true. But that is not what this is about. We are talking here about a poorly written bill that is being pushed through by people who have zero regard for us or our hobby. People like Fran Pavley and the Blue water folks hate powerboaters as a group and will pass what they can to get as many of us off of the water as possible. This is not about open headers, zoomies, or any other extreme examples of loud boats. This bill has the potential to negitively effect all of us.
[ June 03, 2003, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: eliminatedsprinter ]

[eliminatedsprinter]

Boatcop:
Give and take? What are they giving?
"They" are giving you a place to go boating. The government who passes these laws (for the benefit of ALL boaters) is the same governemnt that provides the places for you to go boating.
Who do you think built all those dams to form all these lakes in the middle of the desert? Or provides launching areas for you to enjoy? Guess who? THE GOVERNMENT!
The purposes of those dams and lakes is for:
a. Potable Water Storage
b. Flood control
c. Hydro-electric power generation
d. Irrigation water storage and delivery
and at the bottom of the list
e. Recreation
The electric officials that expended funds to build these lakes also have a duty to protect them, the wildlife that live there, and the people who use them.
It would be within their rights as the stewards of the waterways to ban all boating completely on "their" waters.
When enough people complain to those officials that there is a problem, they listen and take steps to correct that problem. Whether the problem is noise from loud boats or turds floating around at the Sandbar, they do what the people who elected them tell them to do.
They pass laws making it illegal to take a dump in the river, and laws requiring an effective muffler on your boat.
What are they giving? The ability to enjoy our recreational activities on our PUBLIC waterways.
Wanna run loud 'cause it sounds cool? Go to Firebird or some other private lake that allows it.
For every one of you who wants your boat to be loud so you can be "cool", there are 100 people who think you're just annoying.
Don't like the laws? Change them! Boatcop
"Don't like the laws? Change them!" Thats what we are doing by opposing this bill. Working to affect the legislative process.
By "They" I did not mean the government. I ment the handful of citizens who are pushing for this PROPOSED law.
It's funny, I also work for a Gov Agency. However I see my role as the opposite of the attitude you are displaying in this last post. I see my role as one of serving the taxpayers who's taxes (that I also pay) give me a job. I don't see the public facility I work in as mine or the government's, but rather I see it a belonging to the taxpayers who use it and I am happy to serve them in THEIR facility. I don't think I am GIVING them anything, because I know THEIR TAX DOLLARS PAID FOR IT.
P.S. I have read other posts from you and this last one does not seem to reflect the same helpful public service attitude as the others have. Am I taking it wrong? Or are overly loud boats such a sore spot with you, that it caused a bit of a negitive attitude to come out in this one response, that does not reflect your normal frame of referance as a public servant.
[ June 03, 2003, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: eliminatedsprinter ]

[Boatcop]

I admit my last post is kind of out of character for me. And yes, it's because of the attitude that some boaters have.
Some people think that it's their "right" to do whatever they want. Especially here on the River. These are some of the statements I get when I stop a boat for open headers or Zoomies:
"Who cares if my boat's loud?" (Everyone else)
"This is the only place I can run like this. It's illegal everywhere else." (It's illegal here, too.)
"I've been running headers for 20 years." (You haven't been caught until now.)
"I'm not bothering anyone." (Then why did we just take 8 phone calls about your boat?)
"I just do it early in the morning when the water's smooth." (And wake everyone up when Saturday and Sunday is their only chance to sleep in.)
I even read an editorial in Trailer Boat Magazine a few years ago that actually said that the Parker Strip is THE place to go to run uncorked headers or zoomies.
People are either really stupid or think I'm really stupid. They try to tell me that they they didn't know it was illegal. This is right after they hit the solenoid switch under the front seat that turns on the water to their headers as soon as they see me. Or say that they "forgot" to turn the water on.
As I've said dozens of times before. It's all about respect for others and common courtesy. When I can hear boats on the river at 5:00 AM from my inside my house, which is about 3 miles from from the Strip, then I can imagine what the people who live on the river have to put up with.
And yes. I do consider myself a public servant. And when that public tells me they'd like me to do something about "those idiots with the loud boats", I will do my best to oblige them.
I will tell you one thing. In 15 years of doing this on the State level (As oposed to Federal, where there are no noise regs.) I have NEVER issued a ticket for a loud boat. I have, however issued more than my share of them for having no muffling devices installed, or not in constant operation (the solenoid thing).
Even when we use the decibel meter, it's to advise the boater that the boat exceeds legal levels, and to get effective mufflers. And even then, we don't stop them until they are around 92 db(a)s We feel that if they're at least trying to quiet the engine, we'll cut them a break.
There's a reason that you're not allowed to run your funny car or dragster down the street in front of your house. It's too damn loud!
The same principle applies on our waterways.
[ June 03, 2003, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: Boatcop ]

[572Daytona]

The sad fact is no mater what you do you are always going to be bothering some one, even the sound of a paddle splashing in the water in going to annoy somebody at some point. Personally I can't stand the buzzing sound of jet skis and hate the smell of diesel fumes. I guess that means there should be laws outlawing that type of stuff. If you take that type of thinking to the ugly extreme you will end up with a situation like Massachusettes where most of the lakes allow no type of boating or swimming or fishing or anything, even ones that are not used for drinking water. What a great use of tax dollars protecting a public resource for the enjoyment of the few that own property on it.
I also think the recreation aspect was a big factor in creating a lot of the Corps lakes. Many of them were built in impoverished areas of the country to stimulate the economy. I have baffles in my exhaust and I'm in compliance with Georgia laws. Some love the sound, other hate it. To have those that hate it complaign that I'm infringing on their rights is wrong. I have just as much right to enjoy the use of my boat on the lake here as does any other boat owner registered in Georgia and I'm going to enjoy that privledge as often as I can until they take it away.

[Mandelon]

I sent an email too. Here's my comments.
California already has an existing noise restriction bill. It needs only to be enforced. An even more restrictive bill would have a deleterious effect on local economies which may depend on income from pleasure boaters. No boats allowed? Jobs and sales tax revenue will disappear from these sources. How much sales tax does the state generate on the sale, and eventual resale(s) of a $35,000 boat?
As many are aware there is a constant push from the environmentalist crowd to put an end to motorized entertainment. They see boats, motorcycles, off road vehicles, SUVs, motor homes, boats, snowmobiles, etc as disruptive, destructive and a source of pollution.
To a certain extent this cannot be denied, however the actual pollutants produced by these vehicles is a miniscule portion of overall contaminants produced. As a native Californian, and indeed as an American citizen, I am disturbed by the constant erosion of our rights and freedoms. If the environmentalists had their way we would have no tourism, no land development, no new homes, no combustion engines and only limited recreation alternatives. I suppose we could all sit at home and play Scrabble, but I have a feeling the dissent would be overwhelming. The special interest groups have learned to slowly chip away the freedoms of others so it is largely unnoticed, rather than push for a largely unpopular agenda.
Don't support the continued erosion of our freedoms and rights. Please do not support this bill.

[C-2]

The first thing I asked myself about this change wasÂ…why?
Looking beyond all the techno-mumbo-jumbo, itÂ’s just another jab by the enviro-naziÂ’s working towards a bigger picture of taking down the whole sport. And not just boatingÂ…but offroading, dirt biking, anything to do with the outdoors that isnÂ’t *organic*. ArenÂ’t these the same people that try to prevent clear cutting in the forests? IÂ’m sure there are some folks in Show Low that would like to thank them for their efforts.
Any change that tightens regulation is not good for our sport, period. They know it and that is why they are pushing it. That is why we must oppose it. You gotta rememberÂ…in the recent past, Bluewater has filed some outrageous suits with no merit. Thankfully most have been dismissed. But they have some sharp, pencil-pushing Berkeley bound geeks that spend their leisure time debating the whole chicken vs. the egg argument on their side, and maybe this is a new strategy of theirs since the idiotic suits seem to fail.
Personally, I donÂ’t believe ANY marine association is looking out for us boaters. Sorry.
Glad to see the dialog being exchanged :)
And lastly, sorry boatcopÂ…you did sound like an MWD rep on that post! wink

[eliminatedsprinter]

Boatcop
Thanks for the reply :D .
You know what they say "the devil is in the details". Well the detail in this bill that sends up a red flag for me is the idea that they could take the sound measurement just 1 meter from the transom. This is not at all fair and, if enforced, would force a lot more than just the overly loud boats off of the water. My sister and brother-in-law have a beautiful 20.5 foot commander with a bone stock marine power 454 with through hull exhausts that come out below the swim platform. This boat very well might fail a test taken that close to the transom at the water level, yet it is far from an overly loud boat.
I look at the group of far left extremist politicians and the bluewater people who are involved in drafting this bill and I see just the sort of sneaky people who would take the very real concerns you have just expressed and use them to get support for a bill intended go far beyond those valid concerns and take as many powerboaters as they can off of the water.
[ June 04, 2003, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: eliminatedsprinter ]

[KustomKlassics]

Sent mine!

[Essex502]

Boatcop - Alan, I usually agree with you but...you need to remember that we, as taxpayers, own the lakes and streams and inland waterways that are not private. We as voters need to impress our concerns for our sport's well being on the politicians. I don't know the actual effect enactment of this legislation would have on my individual boat since my exhaust is underwater at rest. On plane the exhaust is probably above the water but the test is at rest. What I also don't know is how loud - exactly - is 88 dBa. Some states have enacted 90 dB(A) with the SAE J2005 test and some have 88 dB(A) level. Also, what training and equipment/calibration is required? What concerns me is the "tree-huggers" that are well organized and well funded "SPONSERING" a bill such as this. What testing has the assmeblyman done to see what impact the AB1555 bill has on the public? he does care - all he cares about is getting re-elected and the donations that are made to his campaign.

[Essex502]

BTW folks...Representative Nakano (author of AB1555) also sponsered AB2746 with the help of the Bluewater Network (read: treehuggers) to take on the Cruise Lines and the waste water dumping. Seems that Rep. Nakano is pretty tight with that organization. I wonder how much they have contributed to his campaign funds over the years? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Rexone]

I will be getting a copy of J2005 test procedure and will post it when I receive. That should eliminate alot of confusion and speculation on how the testing will be done that is in the proposed CA bill and already in effect in some other states.

[eliminatedsprinter]

Thanks.