We Are Improving!

We hope that you'll find our new look appealing and the site easier to navigate than before. Please pardon any 404's that you may see, we're trying to tidy those up!  Should you find yourself on a 404 page please use the search feature in the navigation bar.  

Thursday, 18 September 2014 13:39

Wildlife says no-wake zone not needed at Poe Creek

Written by
Rate this item
(1 Vote)

The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission sees no need for a no-wake zone on Poe Creek, a letter sent to Halifax County Attorney Glynn Rollins said.

County commissioners in June requested a safety study following a public hearing in which several residents of the Timber Creek subdivision on Lake Gaston complained of a blind turn and congestion due to boat piers as well as a number of mishaps.

Residents in favor of a no-wake zone had also appeared before the county commissioners in May.

Kate Pipkin, the no-wake zone coordinator for the Wildlife Commission wrote in a September 8 letter to Rollins that “the enforcement division's investigating officers have concluded that there are insufficient safety concerns to establish a no-wake zone in the area defined in the map Halifax County provided … There are no hazards to water safety in this area that would be ameliorated by a no-wake zone.”

The letter says investigating officers did not observe any safety issues in regards to depth of water, obstructions in the water, visibility or distance from shoreline to shoreline “as long as boat and personal watercraft operators abide by boating safety laws and rules currently in place and enforced by Wildlife enforcement officers.”

Wrote Pipkin: “It is the policy of the Wildlife Resources Commission to rely upon the enforcement division's assessment of safety concerns with regard for no-wake zones. Therefore, staff does not recommend favorable action on this request.”

 

Jay Baker, an opponent to the no-wake zone who also teaches wake-surfing out of Poe Creek, was pleased with the ruling. “This ruling just confirms what we have always maintained — that claims of safety issues are baseless.”

Read 3862 times Last modified on Thursday, 18 September 2014 16:18