On 8/21/2010 Wildlife Conservation Officer (WCO)  was on duty at a public information booth at Cabelas in Rapid City.  At approximately 12:00PM WCO  received a call from State Radio dispatch, stating that there was a boating accident at Sheridan Lake.  WCO responded.

At approximately 1:00 PM WCO  arrived at the Sheridan Lake Marina (North Side) and made contact with both parties involved in the accident.

After interviewing both parties, WCO found the following:

Boat A (the boat that received minor injury and damage) 
     -was occupied by 7 individuals 
          -Owner/Operator 
          -Passengers: 6
     -They were sitting in the boat (engine off), and P1 was getting ready to knee-board.
     -The Rope (75') was extended in the water behind the boat
     -P1 was standing on the stern of the boat about to jump into the water with the knee-board
     -A black Tracker boat (Boat B SD6485AA operated by OP1) came extremely close to the boat                                
     -The Tracker boat ran over the top of the extended ski-rope
     -The rope wrapped around P1 leg and knocked her into the water
     -The rope became taught and pulled hard enough on the tow-tower to leave stress fractures in the boat (where the 
      tower mounted to the boat) and torqued the tower from it's original shape.
     
Boat B (the boat that caused the minor injury and damage)
     -Was occupied by 6 individuals
          -Operator: OP1
          -Owner: OW1 (on tube)
          -Passengers: 4
     -OP1 was pulling a tuber (OW1)
     -The tuber fell off of the tube and OP1 slowed down and was going to turn around
     -A ski-line appeared behind Boat A and OP1 ran it over
     -OP1 stated that he was not going over 5mph when he hit the ski-rope
     -OP1 feels that it is Boat A's negligence for leaving their rope extended
     -OP1 and his passengers did not feel a jerk when the rope became taught

WCO2 arrived and took pictures of P1 ankle, stress fractures on the boat, and the torqued tow tower.  WCO2 also completed a boat accident report for Boat A, as WCO  completed one for Boat B.

WCO  had the boat owners exchange insurance information for the damages caused to boat A.  Both parties were cordial to each other and everyone was happy that nobody was severely hurt.

After visiting with OP1 for a time, WCO  found that no alcohol was involved.

WCO  issued OP1 a citation for careless operation.  WCO explained to OP1 (who was very cooperative) that his actions were careless because of the proximately that he came to the other vessel.  WCO explained to OP1 that it was his responsibility to stay a safe distance away from other boats as to not cause undue hazard.

There were also 2 children on Vessel #1 and 2 children on Vessel #2 that were not named.
HILL CITY                     