# Is this legal? ( Jet skis Downtown Scioto Pool)



## Vince™ (Sep 20, 2011)

http://sciotoriverfriends.org/lakes_code.html


----------



## CrappieTacos (Jun 22, 2010)

Why wouldn't it be?


----------



## Vince™ (Sep 20, 2011)

Just seemed a bit dangerous for such a narrow river. Especially with all the bridges and their high speeds.


----------



## Bob4246 (Dec 30, 2004)

Not legal on Griggs or Oshay as they are controlled
by City of Columbus. Not sure about lower Scioto. Mushi may have the answer.


----------



## Vince™ (Sep 20, 2011)

Bob4246 said:


> Not legal on Griggs or Oshay as they are controlled
> by City of Columbus. Not sure about lower Scioto. Mushi may have the answer.


Good to know. I've seen many wakeboard/ski boats on Griggs but never a jet ski. Guess that makes sense now.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

Bob4246 said:


> Not legal on Griggs or Oshay as they are controlled
> by City of Columbus. Not sure about lower Scioto. Mushi may have the answer.


Hasn't been a Mushi sighting in quite some time! Was just wondering where that fella has been.


----------



## max max. (Aug 30, 2016)

*(F)* Personal watercraft, which are classified by the Coast Guard as small Class A-1 or A-2 vessels and which use, as their primary source of mechanical power, an inboard or outboard motor powering a jet pump, and which are designed to be operated by a person in a sitting, standing, or kneeling position rather than that of the conventional manner of either sitting or standing inside the vessel, are prohibited on all city controlled waterways.

From the link above - looks like it is illegal.


----------



## HookBender (Apr 2, 2012)

max max. said:


> *(F)* Personal watercraft, which are classified by the Coast Guard as small Class A-1 or A-2 vessels and which use, as their primary source of mechanical power, an inboard or outboard motor powering a jet pump, and which are designed to be operated by a person in a sitting, standing, or kneeling position rather than that of the conventional manner of either sitting or standing inside the vessel, are prohibited on all city controlled waterways.
> 
> From the link above - looks like it is illegal.


The rises the question of if that stretch is controlled by the city. I don't believe it is, but could be wrong.


----------



## max max. (Aug 30, 2016)

HookBender said:


> The rises the question of if that stretch is controlled by the city. I don't believe it is, but could be wrong.


1) I assume that the label on the webpage is correct (that the text comes from the Columbus City Code)
2) The document makes specific regulations about that water
3) It wouldn't make sense for the city to make laws about something it doesn't control (in fact, the laws would be invalid)
Therefore, I'm pretty sure this document indicates that the city does control that water.


----------



## HookBender (Apr 2, 2012)

max max. said:


> 1) I assume that the label on the webpage is correct (that the text comes from the Columbus City Code)
> 2) The document makes specific regulations about that water
> 3) It wouldn't make sense for the city to make laws about something it doesn't control (in fact, the laws would be invalid)
> Therefore, I'm pretty sure this document indicates that the city does control that water.


I'm sure somebody with more knowledge on the subject will be happy to share a bottom line answer.


----------



## acklac7 (May 31, 2004)

Kyle's probably lost somewhere in the woods, i'll see if I can find him


----------



## max max. (Aug 30, 2016)

HookBender said:


> I'm sure somebody with more knowledge on the subject will be happy to share a bottom line answer.


Columbus Code of Ordinances 921.01
(39) "Waters of the city" shall mean all city-administered water including, but not limited to reservoirs, reservoir lands, rivers, lakes, creeks, streams, ponds and water-filled quarries. Unless otherwise provided, this chapter applies to all vessels operating on waters of this city. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed in contravention of any valid federal act or regulations, but is in addition to such act or regulation where not inconsistent. 

Columbus Code of Ordinances 921.01-1
(F) Personal watercraft, which are classified by the Coast Guard as small Class A-1 or A-2 vessels and which use, as their primary source of mechanical power, an inboard or outboard motor powering a jet pump, and which are designed to be operated by a person in a sitting, standing, or kneeling position rather than that of the conventional manner of either sitting or standing inside the vessel, are prohibited on all city controlled waterways.

https://www.municode.com/library/oh...odeId=TIT9STPAPUPRCO_CH921WARE_921.01-1VEOPWA


OAC 1501:47-07-03

(A) For the purpose of this section, "waterways of the city" shall be defined as all waters within the territorial limits of the City of Columbus or bounded by city owned lands.

(D) Personal watercraft, which are classified by the United States Coast Guard as small Class A-1 or A-2 vessels and which use as the primary source of mechanical power an inboard or outboard motor powering a jet pump, and which are designed to be operated by a person in a sitting on, standing on, or in a kneeling position on the craft rather than that of the conventional manner of either sitting or standing inside the vessel, are prohibited on all city controlled waterways.

http://codes.ohio.gov/oac/1501:47-7


----------



## Vince™ (Sep 20, 2011)

I think that pretty much clears it up. Thanks


----------



## Bubbagon (Mar 8, 2010)

I'm not a jet skier, but wondering why the city would allow speed boats with wake boarders, but not jet skis. Boats designed for wake boarders throw a massive wake, and the drivers are usually preoccupied with their wake boarders, as opposed to watching for other boats.
I got no skin the game, but it just seems odd.


----------



## streamstalker (Jul 8, 2005)

post deleted


----------



## scallop (Apr 1, 2007)

I have put in my 14' V hull @ the Whittier ramp and fished that area. I got stuck even with my small boat near the ramp. No way you could put a larger boat in and make it to that area, so no real worries about wakeboarders or skiers there.


----------



## Bubbagon (Mar 8, 2010)

I'm referring more to the reservoirs. Especially Griggs.
Griggs used to have national wake boarding tournaments because of the reservoir's unique narrow width and high walls. The wake boarders said they'd get the maximum wake at Griggs because the waves would bounce off each other.
Again, I don't really give a poop about it. I just find that delineation of power boats odd.


----------



## Kylesfishin (Jun 11, 2013)

Two guys are out there again right now


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

Are they hurting anything? Hows about we just mind our own business? Or call the cops. Or fish their wakes/prop wash. Fish love that stuff. Seems silly to go on about it here.


----------



## Kylesfishin (Jun 11, 2013)

Well I'm sure the three guys on kayaks that they blew by probably didn't appreciate it


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

Kylesfishin said:


> Well I'm sure the three guys on kayaks that they blew by probably didn't appreciate it


So whats OGF gonna do about it?


----------



## beaver (Sep 28, 2010)

Cry, whine, and grumble about it. You know, the usual.


----------



## Kylesfishin (Jun 11, 2013)

I don't expect you to do anything. it was just a statement. You could have just ignored my original comment, if it bothered you so much.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

Kylesfishin said:


> I don't expect you to do anything. it was just a statement. You could have just ignored my original comment, if it bothered you so much.


Did I say it bothered me? Just tryin to help you out bro.


----------



## Kylesfishin (Jun 11, 2013)

I appreciate the help


----------



## Earthworms (Dec 15, 2014)

The city is draining the river to stop this


----------



## streamstalker (Jul 8, 2005)

post deleted


----------



## streamstalker (Jul 8, 2005)

post deleted


----------



## beaver (Sep 28, 2010)

streamstalker said:


> Can you essplain?


I heard rumor that they were draining it into the ohio river....


----------



## streamstalker (Jul 8, 2005)

post deleted


----------



## beaver (Sep 28, 2010)

streamstalker said:


> That sucks.


Yea, stupid dnr. Next thing you know, they'll drain the ohio into the Mississippi...


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

beaver said:


> Yea, stupid dnr. Next thing you know, they'll drain the ohio into the Mississippi...


Yep...leave it to DNR to screw up a good thing...



Bubbagon said:


> I'm not a jet skier, but wondering why the city would allow speed boats with wake boarders, but not jet skis. Boats designed for wake boarders throw a massive wake, and the drivers are usually preoccupied with their wake boarders, as opposed to watching for other boats.
> I got no skin the game, but it just seems odd.


May be wrong but I would guess that the city does not want to be held accountable for someone on a smaller jet ski hitting a turd floating downstream in that area, wrecking and causing injury...again, just a guess.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

streamstalker said:


> regulate it


Ohhh? Don't mind if I do!


----------



## beaver (Sep 28, 2010)

MassillonBuckeye said:


> Ohhh? Don't mind if I do!


MOUNT UP!


----------



## Bubbagon (Mar 8, 2010)




----------

