Big Wakes, what to do?

[jrc]

Mashugana posted this picture to discuss the safety of riding on the bow but I hijacked his thread to talk about big wakes and horsepower limits:



A lot of those boats are underpowered and can't get fully on plane, especially when full of people. Some are semi-displacement and designed to run that way. Some just have unskilled operators.

I don't have an easy solution but in my opinion a HP limit makes it worse. Local boat dealers will buy the biggest boats with the smallest engines to squeak under the limit.

[Lakegeezer]

I don't have an answer to the wake problem, but it is a problem worth discussing. The picture shown is exactly what we see every busy weekend day. The heavy displacement boats generally travel 300-600 feet off shore. When the big ones go by, my boat bangs against the dock, even though I have whips to keep it safe. If I'm in my kayak, I have to turn into the wake in order to remain safe and dry. If the water level is high, my small beachfront is washed over, removing soil from the lawn and putting it into the lake. The kids love it. They use the windboards to surf the wake.

Eroding conditions also occur during congested times, even without the heavy boats. Due to an easterly bouy, its difficult for both boats to remain 150 from each other while the western craft maintains 150 from the shore. That doesn't stop them from trying though. Frequently, one or both will reduce speed to maximum wake for the passage. We've seen 20+ boats passing in opposite parades, grinding along at about 10 MPH and generating massive waves. It would be better for the lake if they just maintained speed and passed at 100 feet rather than 150. The MP make a lot of money when they show up, but also cause a lot of extra congestion.

When boats go by at very high speed, we see little wake, and their noise is gone much faster. The ideal situation.

[Excalibur]

The operator needs to be at least 150 ft from shore. This should disperse a wave enough to have a minor impact on a shore front. Perhaps it should be increased to 300ft like the jet ski limits.

But remember the wind generated waves can be at times around 10 feet high and constant waves hitting a shore front. Thats why you will see a lot of breakwater docks, mooring buoys, and docking whips around the large open areas of the lake. Your shore front and docking system should handle large wakes, not only from the once in a while boat wake but in case a storm and wind direction hits your shore front. We are unable to limit mother nature at this time. Sometimes you have to deal with it.

[Cristen]

Well for starters....go get yourself a jet ski.
Jumping big wakes like that is an absolute BLAST!!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Cristen

Well for starters....go get yourself a jet ski.
Jumping big wakes like that is an absolute BLAST!!

And against the law! You are not allowed to jump another boats wake.




The big wake solution is easy. A horsepower limit will do the trick.

The reason you think it may not work is because you are thinking of numbers that are to high.

[jrc]

I'm sorry if I think a law that removes about 90% of the boats from the lake is a little far-fetched. How many power boats are there with less than 100 HP?

This is the smallest Searay, only available with 135 HP, you would ban this boat?

[Mike M.]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

Eroding conditions also occur during congested times, even without the heavy boats. Due to an easterly bouy, its difficult for both boats to remain 150 from each other while the western craft maintains 150 from the shore. That doesn't stop them from trying though. Frequently, one or both will reduce speed to maximum wake for the passage. We've seen 20+ boats passing in opposite parades, grinding along at about 10 MPH and generating massive waves. It would be better for the lake if they just maintained speed and passed at 100 feet rather than 150. The MP make a lot of money when they show up, but also cause a lot of extra congestion.

When boats go by at very high speed, we see little wake, and their noise is gone much faster. The ideal situation.

The high water a couple of years ago is a perfect example of this. By reducing your speed to headway speed it was extremely counter productive. Everyone's wake was much larger and caused a lot more damage than a boat traveling by at 35mph with essentially no wake.

What right do we have to limit people's horse power? If we under power boats it will make the wake more damaging to property.

[Merrymeeting]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

And against the law! You are not allowed to jump another boats wake.

Might help if you spoke with as much knowledge as you do authority.

There is no law against jumping a boats wake. There is a law against doing it within 150' of another boat, which is how most violate the law.

But I expect the wake pictured would still be high enough after the boat is well past 150'

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

And against the law! You are not allowed to jump another boats wake.




The big wake solution is easy. A horsepower limit will do the trick.

The reason you think it may not work is because you are thinking of numbers that are to high.

I might be wrong but isn't it lawful to jump the wakes of a boat on my PWC as long as I am outside the 150' boundary? If jumping other boats wake is against the law then i'm breaking the law backing my PWC out of the lift. The whole lake is one big wake on summer weekends. As long as I'm not within 150' of the boat throwing the wake I think it's perfectly legal.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Merrymeeting

Might help if you spoke with as much knowledge as you do authority.

There is no law against jumping a boats wake. There is a law against doing it within 150' of another boat, which is how most violate the law.

But I expect the wake pictured would still be high enough after the boat is well past 150'

Sorry, you are wrong about that. I'll find a copy if you want.

My idea was a 300 horsepower limit for boats made after 2008. To be fair any HP limit would have to be phased in over many years. There is a long list of NH lakes and ponds with speed and HP limits. Those that think this is impossible should read it. Quite an eye opener.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

I might be wrong but isn't it lawful to jump the wakes of a boat on my PWC as long as I am outside the 150' boundary? If jumping other boats wake is against the law then i'm breaking the law backing my PWC out of the lift. The whole lake is one big wake on summer weekends. As long as I'm not within 150' of the boat throwing the wake I think it's perfectly legal.

You are correct and Bear Islander is wrong. There is no RSA in New Hampshire preventing wake jumping with a PWC, or any other craft, as long as the vessel is not being operated recklessly and is following all required minimum distance regulations.

The practice is discouraged by verbiage in the boating guide and some safety officials, and is illegal in some other States.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Sorry, you are wrong about that. I'll find a copy if you want.

My idea was a 300 horsepower limit for boats made after 2008. To be fair any HP limit would have to be phased in over many years. There is a long list of NH lakes and ponds with speed and HP limits. Those that think this is impossible should read it. Quite an eye opener.

So in that case, as technology makes engines cleaner and hull designs more efficient, lets promote people to buy older boats to bypass your law. Counter-productive as far as pollution goes...??? Way to go...

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Skip

You are correct and Bear Islander is wrong. There is no RSA in New Hampshire preventing wake jumping with a PWC, or any other craft, as long as the vessel is not being operated recklessly and is following all required minimum distance regulations.

The practice is discouraged by verbiage in the boating guide and some safety officials, and is illegal in some other States.

Well if Skip says there is no law, then there is no law. My apology's.

This is from the states Boater's Guide. However this is not the first time that we have found problems with the states interpretations.

"Do not jump the wake of a passing vessel, or ride too close to another vessel, because this creates special risks and is a common complaint about PWC and "ski craft" operators. These operations are also illegal".

[jrc]

Wake jumping against the rules if you become airborne.


Saf-C 404.12 Operational Rules for Crossing Boat Wakes and Conduct Near Other Vessels.

(a) No boat operator shall allow his or her boat to cross the wake of another boat, or cross its own wake, in a way that causes the vessel to become airborne. For the purposes of this section, "airborne" means that the boat's hull completely leaves the water.

.....

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

...Well if Skip says there is no law, then there is no law. My apology's...

This is from the states Boater's Guide. However this is not the first time that we have found problems with the states interpretations.

"Do not jump the wake of a passing vessel, or ride too close to another vessel, because this creates special risks and is a common complaint about PWC and "ski craft" operators. These operations are also illegal".

No apology necessary.

As we have both observed in the past, the "Boater's Guide" is a generic document that I believe is authored by an out-of-state firm that uses a cookie cutter approach to cover a number of different States. In doing so I (and others) have observed several inconsistencies and outright mistakes especially when the document attempts to make broad general statements, as with the wake jumping paragraph cited above.

It is obviously illegal if you encroach within the 150 foot radius, as I think the document was trying to imply, or your vessel becomes completely airborne, as JRC notes above.

Anyway, the "Guide" is just that, a guide. It should not be construed as the official interpretation of New Hampshire's RSAs and Administrative Code, as it attempts to cover vast legal grounds in a "Reader's Digest" manner!

But a good example of yet another regulation extremely hard to enforce, so seldomly enforced....

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jrc

Wake jumping against the rules if you become airborne.


Saf-C 404.12 Operational Rules for Crossing Boat Wakes and Conduct Near Other Vessels.

(a) No boat operator shall allow his or her boat to cross the wake of another boat, or cross its own wake, in a way that causes the vessel to become airborne. For the purposes of this section, "airborne" means that the boat's hull completely leaves the water.

.....

Hey.. That is what I was thinking of. I guess I was wrong about being mistaken. Thanks jrc.

The question seems to be does "wake jumping" mean getting the hull completely out of the water. Others may disagree, but the way I operate a PWC... it ain't jumping if you don't get out of the water!

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by jrc

Mashugana posted this picture to discuss the safety of riding on the bow but I hijacked his thread to talk about big wakes and horsepower limits:



A lot of those boats are underpowered and can't get fully on plane, especially when full of people. Some are semi-displacement and designed to run that way. Some just have unskilled operators.

I don't have an easy solution but in my opinion a HP limit makes it worse. Local boat dealers will buy the biggest boats with the smallest engines to squeak under the limit.

Interesting picture and topic. The problem in my mind is not really boat design or size, or even Horse power for all that matters. It is about the fact that a boater is responsible for the damage his wake creates. unfortunately this is something that is very hard for the person with damage to prove. Some of the big cruisers with non planing hulls are ment as ocean going vessels and have no place on the lake, regardless of how big it is. For those planning hull 30 ft cabin cruisers then need to learn that the either go slow and create minimal wake, or get up on plane..... hummm by the way those are the two most efficient ways for a planing hull to travel.... but far to many of them plow along creating as much wake as possible. Unfortunately way to many boats are on the lake now that shouldn't be, and there is no easy way to look at romoving them...... Oh and by the way..... I am even critical of the Mount and the two smaller tourist boats.....

[Seeker]

I think it all boils down to education and I don't mean a classroom boating course. Did you get your original drivers license after a classroom course or did you drive a real car?
In my opinion anyone buying a new power or sail boat should be given a "on the water" get aquainted test drive with their new boat. This would include handling as well as operation of all onboard systems.
It will probably never happen but it would be nice.

[lakershaker]

Sorry, I had posted this under the original thread with this picture, before seeing this tread started. It is more appropriate here...
------------
I posted this a few years ago, and was immediately shot down, but here it goes again...
For those boats considered "houseboats," why aren't they taxed at all by the state? I have a camp on an island that only is used during the boating season, and I pay property taxes on it. I have great views, and a great location out in the middle of the lake, and don't really complain about the taxes I pay to enjoy it. Now take as an example that picture in the original post. There is a 2 or 3 bedroom floating camp with a kitchen, septic and probably air conditioning (I don't have AC at my camp), and which with the wake in the picture is doing much more long-term damage to the environment than my camp is. But this floating camp only pays a modest registration fee.

Now the argument from the big boat owners will be that because they own or rent a dock slip, they are indirectly paying taxes... I don't buy it - as an island property owner, I too need to pay a boat slip rent or buy one, but then still pay more in taxes for a piece of property that has no road, little fire protection and where I don't use the schools. And what about the guy who trailers his houseboat? Or they will say they pay taxes via the fuel tax. Again, not the same thing, and I am sure they still apply for the $0.19/gallon refund at the end of the year...

Maybe, if there needs to be a way to limit size or to pay for environmental remediation, we should have the big boats pay property taxes for the floating camps, just like the islanders and other shorefront owners do for their piece of paradise. They way I look at it, a 35' boat has at least 70' of waterfrontage! This would serve to self-regulate boat size.

Just some food for thought!

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by lakershaker

I posted this a few years ago, and was immediately shot down, but here it goes again...

It was likely shot down because it is fairly illogical. Should RV's also have property taxes levied against them?

There is a great difference between a building on a piece of property, and a vehicle of sorts that has no adjacent property. For one thing, the value of your camp will, over time, steadily increase (and there is no need to get off-topic about year over year housing prices). The value of a boat (or RV) will steadily decrease over time (perhaps with very few exceptions for particularly unique vessels).

There are many ways to experience the lake, you can do so as a mainland property owner (with or without waterfront), as an island property owner (with or without waterfront), via an RV/campsite, via a Boat/slip, or even via tent/campsite. They all have their pros and cons, and tradeoffs that most people recognize and voluntarily accept when choosing their lake-experience-method-of-choice.

I'll tell you what, since you think a "houseboat" is roughly equivalent to your island "camp", I will purchase to your spec and trade you outright a houseboat and deeded dock of current equivalent value to your campsite. You will then be able to enjoy a comparable experience to what you have now, without the burden of property taxes.

[lakershaker]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

It was likely shot down because it is fairly illogical. Should RV's also have property taxes levied against them?

There is a great difference between a building on a piece of property, and a vehicle of sorts that has no adjacent property. For one thing, the value of your camp will, over time, steadily increase (and there is no need to get off-topic about year over year housing prices). The value of a boat (or RV) will steadily decrease over time (perhaps with very few exceptions for particularly unique vessels).

This is true, and what is also true is that the taxes on the real estate property will increase each year, while the taxes on a boat would decrease. As for RVs, yes, I guess under this scenario they also should be taxed, but that is slightly off the lake topic. As for being illogical, many states tax personal property, so it is an issue that has been dealt with before. And, it is a big reason so many people from MA and CT and other states register their boats in NH.

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

I'll tell you what, since you think a "houseboat" is roughly equivalent to your island "camp", I will purchase to your spec and trade you outright a houseboat and deeded dock of current equivalent value to your campsite. You will then be able to enjoy a comparable experience to what you have now, without the burden of property taxes.

No thanks. As I said in my post, I am not complaining about the taxes I pay, but rather proposing a way to account for the other ways of enjoying the lake, so that one person is not paying for another's enjoyment...

[Nauset]

Originally Posted by lakershaker

No thanks. As I said in my post, I am not complaining about the taxes I pay, but rather proposing a way to account for the other ways of enjoying the lake, so that one person is not paying for another's enjoyment...

Don't property taxes go to the town to pay for running the town. How does that benefit the lake? The lake was not built by the town. How would your taxes pay for someone enjoying the lake. What you are proposing is a usage tax which would go beyond house boats.

[jrc]

This year I will pay $48.50 in registrations and $471.36 in boat fees. For about 350 square feet of "property" on the lake. That's about $1.48 a square foot.

A 10,000 square foot lot (1/4 acre) would have to pay $14,800 a year in taxes to be the same rate.

I also pay taxes of over $1000 on my condo boat slip. Plus another $600 for condo fees, much of which goes to pay the town taxes on the association land and town fees for the sewer hook-up for the boat pump-out.

I can't send children to school, I can't claim residence, I don't get any other services. I can't anchor my lake "property" on the lake at night.

I don't think I'm taking unfair advantage.

[lakershaker]

Nauset - you're right, property taxes do go to the town. Most of that is for schools, but for Alton, that also goes to maintaining public docks and providing public area near the lake, which benefits anyone coming in on a boat. Same for all the lakeside towns. Another part goes to road repair - if the local roads weren't maintained, it would be hard for anyone to get to their boats or the lake.

My point in proposing this was also in response to ways to control large boats and their impact on the lake. I certainly don't want to pay more taxes generally, but I don't think that limiting or restricting size or HP is the answer. Putting in a control mechanism like an excise tax will self-regulate to an extent the size of boats. And for the portion that still go for a big boat, it provides a revenue stream to offset their impact. Maybe specify that this revenue stream would be for lake and waterbody use only - like to provide the funding for marine patrol and fish & game everyone says is lacking, or to help remediate environmental problems caused by boats and wakes. Similar to what happens in housing - if you build a giant place, you will pay more in taxes, if you have a modest house, you'll pay less.

[Mashugana]

Originally Posted by jrc

Mashugana posted this picture to discuss the safety of riding on the bow but I hijacked his thread to talk about big wakes and horsepower limits:

Sunset Bob took that picture.
Click HERE to see it in Photo Post.
I just included it in my post as an example like you did jrc. His picture is used again in a thread starter. Thank you Sunset Bob for this and all the pictures you post. There are many outstanding pictures in the Photo Post by many people. Bob's gallery is among the best.

In the other thread Bob said that this boat was throwing up this big wake for a long time. It was the cruising speed of the boat on this trip.

[Sunset Bob]

Originally Posted by Mashugana

Sunset Bob took that picture.
Click HERE to see it in Photo Post.
I just included it in my post as an example like you did jrc. His picture is used again in a thread starter. Thank you Sunset Bob for this and all the pictures you post. There are many outstanding pictures in the Photo Post by many people. Bob's gallery is among the best.

Thank you for your kind words Mashugana. My photos are only fair compaired to the others on photo post but I keep trying.

[jrc]

Thanks, Sunset Bob, great picture!

Your comments about that boat cruising around like that, throwing a monster wake inspired this thread.

Hope you don't mind that I hijacked your photo.

[Sunset Bob]

Originally Posted by jrc

Thanks, Sunset Bob, great picture!

Your comments about that boat cruising around like that, throwing a monster wake inspired this thread.

Hope you don't mind that I hijacked your photo.

jrc I don't mind at all.I am enjoying this thread and the bow riding thread.
I don't conceder it highjacking when my photos are on photo post for all to enjoy or use as they see fit.
If I wanted to protect my photos I wouldn't post them.

[Mashugana]

Originally Posted by Sunset Bob

Thank you for your kind words Mashugana. My photos are only fair compaired to the others on photo post but I keep trying.

You are welcome.

I came back to this page to edit my last post and Bob has already replied and quoted it . I wanted to add Bob's comments about the boat from the other thread.

Originally Posted by Sunset Bob

I took this picture the day they were raising the colbalt that went down off of Rattlesnake Island.
This boat came out of Wolfeboro and went all the way up the broads at the same speed.
I don't want to get into the speed limit debate but that wake will do a lot more damage than a boat going fast where it is safe to do so.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by lakershaker

Putting in a control mechanism like an excise tax will self-regulate to an extent the size of boats. And for the portion that still go for a big boat, it provides a revenue stream to offset their impact. Maybe specify that this revenue stream would be for lake and waterbody use only - like to provide the funding for marine patrol and fish & game everyone says is lacking, or to help remediate environmental problems caused by boats and wakes. Similar to what happens in housing - if you build a giant place, you will pay more in taxes, if you have a modest house, you'll pay less.

Oh brother... I imply from your user profile that your primary state of residence is CT. I am glad you cannot vote your "tax everything for the good of the people" mentality in NH.

[Sunset Bob]

Here is a picture of the wake rolling through the recovery area.Pictures tend to flatten things out look at the angle of the small MP boat.This is also after the wake traveled most of the way across the broads.

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Well if Skip says there is no law, then there is no law. My apology's.

This is from the states Boater's Guide. However this is not the first time that we have found problems with the states interpretations.

"Do not jump the wake of a passing vessel, or ride too close to another vessel, because this creates special risks and is a common complaint about PWC and "ski craft" operators. These operations are also illegal".

I have looked through the NH Boater's guide and cannot for the life of me find that quote BI. Would you be so kind to point me in the right direction and tell me where it is located in the manual? It appears to me you have taken a few lines from several different requirements and made up your own requirement. If not and i'm truly not seeing it I apologize in advance.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

I have looked through the NH Boater's guide and cannot for the life of me find that quote BI. Would you be so kind to point me in the right direction and tell me where it is located in the manual? It appears to me you have taken a few lines from several different requirements and made up your own requirement. If not and i'm truly not seeing it I apologize in advance.

http://www.boat-ed.com/nh/handbook/ethics.htm

[John A. Birdsall]

I find taxes a fair thing to argue over, yet will no doubt go anywhere. I had a boat once in CT and they were after property tax on it. I claimed residence in Mass and they said prove I pay taxes on the boat in Mass. You will never believe the mess I got into. (I was in the Military and trying to get by financially.)

But I do not register my boat in CT for two reasons, 1.) dumb laws, and dumber police 2. Taxes and more taxes

I assist in paying taxes on the cottage and without much work I find that the cottage itself is not unrealistically taxed. However, the waterfrontage is. and therefore because of the waterfrontage I think the houseboaters should pay equal amount of waterfrontage, and or view tax. They got waterfrontage 360 degrees and the view changes as you move about on the boat or "as the boat turns" (similar to as the World turns on TV)

[Winni Boater 17 Years]

I am currently a boater on Lake Winnipeasaukee entering my 18th year and have a cabin cruiser. My boat cannot go 25 miles per hour so I have no vested interest in speed limits controls and I respect my wake, as best I can. Here is my time tested observations.

1. There is very little boat traffic of any type during the weekdays. The boating season is really on weekends during the months of July and August. Exclude rainy, windy days and you are talking about 14 days a year when the lake is crowded with boats, at most.

2. People who have property on the lake have considerable investments and want unencumbered access to the water. They resent "weekend “boaters”; their wakes, their anchoring and their constant disruption to the owners’ view of the lake.

3. Lake front owners continually press for laws/rules for speed limits, no wake zones, no rafting zones, establishing swim lines, and now horsepower limits etc. All of these actions are directed at the “boaters” trying to restrict their activities more and more, hoping they will leave.

4. Several years ago as my wife and I were slowly cruising off of Wolfeboro Neck on a Sunday morning, when someone put a rifle bullet into our stern from shore, 12 inches from the gas tank. The local Police could not find the perpetrator. We concluded it was a festered emotion (probable a youngster) of a lake front property owner or summer renter, who acted out, their built in frustration. They are a serious bunch.


The entire issue is not one of safety or Lake preservation; it is about a select group of lake front property owners trying to squeeze the weekend boater; hoping the Boater will leave, through Legislation or frustration. There are now very few speed boats left on the lake, they just cost too much and are not versatile. Now the shore front owners are moving to step three, going after the cabin cruisers keeping them far off shore so as to “protect the shore line”, or restricting hoarsepower. Once again, it is nothing more than a squeeze play against the boaters. After all, lake front home owners feel they “own the water”, lucky for us the State of New Hampshire does. Why can't we get along? Won't Happen.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Winni Boater 17 Years

I am currently a boater on Lake Winnipeasaukee entering my 18th year and have a cabin cruiser. My boat cannot go 25 miles per hour so I have no vested interest in speed limits controls and I respect my wake, as best I can. Here is my time tested observations.
SNIP

Welcome. Interesting first post. I have to say I tend to agree with what you wrote.

I watch Mythbusters but don't always agree with their conclusions. I do, however, believe that even if the bullet hit the tank, nothing would've happened except a leak. Bullets and gas tank explosions are a prodcut of Hollywood.

[islander10]

I am an islander and the only reason we are on the lake is because we built. We could not afford to buy a cottage on this lake. We are taxed dearly because we made our place look nice but it is our choice to be there. We pay as much to the marina to keep our boat, as we do taxes.
We have been on the lake for 30 years and have seen some changes. There are a lot of bigger boats on the lake but I think that is because no one can afford a piece of property. It is ridiculous to think that the boaters should be taxed. They pay their taxes with the marina costs. We don't need any more taxes!!!! We don't need anymore rules or laws. The marine patrol can't even keep up with the laws and rules we have. Please don't think that all owners want all boaters off the lake. I live at the lake from May till Oct. I would go nuts if there wasn't something to watch! Ha!
The only way to make things better would be to have a test to drive a boat and that isn't going to happen. I can do pretty much anything with my boat because I refused to have to be "driven" around. (I am a woman!) I have two scratches on my boat that is eleven years old. Two times other people have hit me. Both while I was tied to a dock!!!! One was while I was in my marina. When I told the owner he said, "If I only rented to people who knew how to drive boats, this marina would be empty." That says it all!!

[Cristen]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Well if Skip says there is no law, then there is no law. My apology's.

This is from the states Boater's Guide. However this is not the first time that we have found problems with the states interpretations.

"Do not jump the wake of a passing vessel, or ride too close to another vessel, because this creates special risks and is a common complaint about PWC and "ski craft" operators. These operations are also illegal".

Geez.....I can see quite a debate about jumping wakes here. That's funny!

I follow the 150 foot rule and ride my jet ski safely. If jumping wakes is against the law.....oh well - I'm still jumping them. That's part of the fun of riding jet skis.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Cristen

Geez.....I can see quite a debate about jumping wakes here. That's funny!

I follow the 150 foot rule and ride my jet ski safely. If jumping wakes is against the law.....oh well - I'm still jumping them. That's part of the fun of riding jet skis.

You go, girl!!!

[Silver Duck]

Winni Boater and Islander 10 - well said!

Winni Boater, since you are a cruiser owner (as am I), you might want to keep an eye on the next phase of the "get them off the lake" effort. We are the next target for these folks, and the open moves of that campaign are already under way.

Silver Duck

[Cristen]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

You go, girl!!!

Thanks VitaBene!
Summer fun is right around the corner. Woohoo!!

[Webbsatwinni]

Originally Posted by jrc

I'm sorry if I think a law that removes about 90% of the boats from the lake is a little far-fetched. How many power boats are there with less than 100 HP?

This is the smallest Searay, only available with 135 HP, you would ban this boat?

And if we are limited to boats this small, how many more safety issue will occur on windy days in the broads. I am not against certain areas and shore distances having speed limits, but horsepower limits will make some areas of the lake impassable as a result of boat size.

Maybe property owning islanders would be exempt from this rule so they can reach their island properties, and that would increase island property values as we will be the only fast boats going 45mph.

[idigtractors]

Originally Posted by jrc

This is the smallest Searay, only available with 135 HP, you would ban this boat?

That might not be a bad idea as I don't really like that yellow

[Airwaves]

Just to make a quick point here.

Originally posted by John A. Birdsall
I assist in paying taxes on the cottage and without much work I find that the cottage itself is not unrealistically taxed. However, the waterfrontage is. and therefore because of the waterfrontage I think the houseboaters should pay equal amount of waterfrontage, and or view tax. They got waterfrontage 360 degrees and the view changes as you move about on the boat or "as the boat turns" (similar to as the World turns on TV)

The problem that I see with imposing a tax on a houseboat is that use of a houseboat, as a houseboat, in New Hampshire is illegal so you would be trying to tax someone on an illegal activity.

First to make sure everyone knows what a “houseboat” is considered to be in New Hampshire:

270-A:1 Definitions. – The following words and phrases as used in this chapter shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly requires otherwise:
I. ""Person'' means any individual, firm, co-partnership, company, association or joint-stock association, including any trustee, administrator, executor, receiver, assignee or other personal representative thereof.
II. ""Houseboat'' means any ship, boat, raft, float, catamaran or marine craft of any description upon or within which are located sleeping and toilet facilities, regardless of whether such facilities are of a permanent or temporary nature.
III. ""Overnight period'' means the period of time between the termination of daylight in the evening to the earliest dawn in the next morning.
IV. ""Mooring'' means beaching, grounding, or tying of a houseboat to the shore of any of the inland surface waters of the state, and the anchoring of a houseboat on any of the inland surface waters of the state.
Source. 1967, 412:1, eff. Jan. 1, 1968.

'
This provision says the only “legal houseboat” are the ones that waterfront property owners own themselves or those who owned by people renting your place. I would suggest it also includes the folks that own dockominiums where they keep their boat tied up:

270-A:2 Where Overnight Mooring Permitted. – A houseboat may be beached or grounded, or tied to the shore of any of the inland surface waters of the state for an overnight period, or any part of an overnight period, only when on or at a location owned, leased, or otherwise under the control of the owner or operator of the houseboat or by permission of the owner, lessee, or person otherwise in control of such location. An unoccupied houseboat may be anchored on the inland surface waters of the state for an overnight period, or any part of an overnight period, only in an area reasonably adjacent to a location owned, leased, or otherwise under the control of the owner or operator of the houseboat or by permission of the owner, lessee, or person otherwise in control of such location.
Source. 1967, 412:1, eff. Jan. 1, 1968.

These are the “houseboats” that appear to be the subject of tax talk:

270-A:3 Where Overnight Mooring Prohibited. – No houseboat shall be beached or grounded, or tied to the shore of any of the inland surface waters of the state for an overnight period or any part of an overnight period, except as permitted in RSA 270-A:2 or in cases of emergency. No houseboat shall be anchored on any of the inland surface waters of the state for an overnight period or any part of an overnight period except as permitted in RSA 270-A:2 or in cases of emergency.
Source. 1967, 412:1, eff. Jan. 1, 1968.

As I see it the only “houseboats” that will end up being taxed are the ones owned by waterfront property owners and owners of dockominiums. I don't see you being able to tax dockominium owners without taxing every boat on the lake with a bunk and a head including the ones owned by waterfront property owners.

[jrc]

It's the same color as your tractor.

I guess the 100 HP strawman from Bear Islander was a mistake. He now only wants to ban this boat which has 300 HP:



and this one



And wait until Fay's and Shep's find out how may boats from Chapparal or Monterey will be banned. I'm sure they'll jump right on board.

[idigtractors]

Originally Posted by jrc

It's the same color as your tractor.

OH no, no, no. My EXCAVATOR is industrial yellow which is a very dull yellow compared to that boat.

[fatlazyless]

Big wakes are good for kayak surf'n. Three of the biggest wake-makers are the Marine Patrol 41' former Coast Guard launch that has no name, and the tour boats, the Sophie C., and Doris E. Surprisingly, the 220' Mount Washington leaves a pretty dull wake.

Paddle along at about the same speed as an oncoming wake and let the wave crest catch up to your kayak, then try to position on the downside of the wave crest.

Am I the only one who appreciates the big wakes?

[Orion]

I think we should ban yellow boats!

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Originally Posted by Orion

I think we should ban yellow boats!

Hmmmm..........will that include boats that are predominantly white with multi-color graphics which happen to include yellow??

[Orion]

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

Hmmmm..........will that include boats that are predominantly white with multi-color graphics which happen to include yellow??

Only if it's more than 20% yellow.....and loud....or fast......or makes big wakes.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

If you make a big wake on a windy day and no one can tell, is it still a wake?

The only problem I have with wakes is when they are created 50 feet from my dock and they hit before they can spread to 4 or 5 smaller wavelets. The 150 foot rule also serves the unintended purpose of giving the waves a chance to have children before they travel to far.

[froggy]

Originally Posted by Seeker

I think it all boils down to education and I don't mean a classroom boating course. Did you get your original drivers license after a classroom course or did you drive a real car?
In my opinion anyone buying a new power or sail boat should be given a "on the water" get aquainted test drive with their new boat. This would include handling as well as operation of all onboard systems.
It will probably never happen but it would be nice.

AMEN! Absolutely correct.

The sales people taking buyer's funds, and here 's the keys saying go for it, should be reprimanded. Or better yet outlawed.

Boat tax portion of registration: I think you will find that when registrations are mailed to state NO money reverts to town. When registrations are processed at a marina or town clerk, a large portion of the tax stays in that town.

[Bear Islander]

Eleven of the largest lakes in Alabama now have a 500 Horsepower limit. I wonder how many people believed that could never happen?

[NBR]

While I can't say for sure my guess is that the boat plowing along like that is no where near full or 3/4 throttle. In my opinion the operator is proceeding at a dangerous speed. He/she can't see well in front because of bow angle and the wake they are pushing is a hazzard to other boats.

Again my guess but my thoughts are 1)the operator doesn't know any better, 2)he/she is not thinking or 3)doesn't care. I hope it is item 1 or 2 those can be fixed.

[SIKSUKR]

I bet that's really helped with their big wake problems.I wonder how many people believed that would help.

[Kamper]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

... the Marine Patrol 41' former Coast Guard launch that has no name, ...

I thought that was the "Wentworth?" Named after one of our earlier governors.

[Gatto Nero]

Originally Posted by NBR

Again my guess but my thoughts are 1)the operator doesn't know any better, 2)he/she is not thinking or 3)doesn't care. I hope it is item 1 or 2 those can be fixed.

Or perhaps he was just getting underway? The photo captures a moment in time. No way to tell from that what he did before or after the shot was taken. But why let that stop us from stringing him up? He's obviously guilty of something, right? After all, he does own a big boat.

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Eleven of the largest lakes in Alabama now have a 500 Horsepower limit. I wonder how many people believed that could never happen?

I swear, it seems like you post just to inflame, don't you?

Originally Posted by Gatto Nero

Or perhaps he was just getting underway? The photo captures a moment in time. No way to tell from that what he did before or after the shot was taken. But why let that stop us from stringing him up? He's obviously guilty of something, right? After all, he does own a big boat.

Gatto, I realize it looks like people are jumping the gun on their criticism of that cruiser captain but the quote below is from the locked thread where the question was asked about the legality and/or safe operation of the cruiser pictured. I'm not trying to criticize your comments, I just wanted to point out that someone DID witness how the boat was being operated before and after the picture was taken.

Originally Posted by Sunset Bob

I took this picture the day they were raising the colbalt that went down off of Rattlesnake Island.
This boat came out of Wolfeboro and went all the way up the broads at the same speed.
I don't want to get into the speed limit debate but that wake will do a lot more damage than a boat going fast where it is safe to do so.

[Gatto Nero]

Well, in that case, you get the tar and I'll get the feathers. He probably swamped my dock on the way by.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Eleven of the largest lakes in Alabama now have a 500 Horsepower limit. I wonder how many people believed that could never happen?

I can believe it. Alabama's educational system is routinely ranked in the bottom 10% of states. Nobody expects them to make intelligent decisions.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

I swear, it seems like you post just to inflame, don't you? ...

Below are recent quotes by others about a horsepower limit. I posted an example of it happening somewhere else. You agree with them so you think their posts are OK. You disagree with me, so you perceive my posts as inflammatory.

"I highly doubt we will ever see that limit, especially on Lake Winni."

"Speed Limits, sure I see it happening, (obviously). HP limits? Way way way too much money at stake for the state of NH to even consider it. They'd be cutting off their nose/face/head etc. You can spin the tourism vs Speed Limit argument in your favor to actually make some people believe it but even the dumbest politician would belly laugh at the idea of HP limits on Winni. For reasons already posted here but NH would never deliberately kill the many businesses who rely on large horsepower boats to do business on the lake."

"A horsepower limit, not in my lifetime, not on Winni. Squam and smaller lakes absolutely. Winni is too large a body with too much economic impact at stake."

"I'm 60 years old. I seriously doubt I will see a horse power limit on Lake Winnipesaukee in my life. Nor do I think any current poster needs to worry much about it in their lives."

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Below are recent quotes by others about a horsepower limit. I posted an example of it happening somewhere else. You agree with them so you think their posts are OK. You disagree with me, so you perceive my posts as inflammatory.

"I highly doubt we will ever see that limit, especially on Lake Winni."

"Speed Limits, sure I see it happening, (obviously). HP limits? Way way way too much money at stake for the state of NH to even consider it. They'd be cutting off their nose/face/head etc. You can spin the tourism vs Speed Limit argument in your favor to actually make some people believe it but even the dumbest politician would belly laugh at the idea of HP limits on Winni. For reasons already posted here but NH would never deliberately kill the many businesses who rely on large horsepower boats to do business on the lake."

"A horsepower limit, not in my lifetime, not on Winni. Squam and smaller lakes absolutely. Winni is too large a body with too much economic impact at stake."

"I'm 60 years old. I seriously doubt I will see a horse power limit on Lake Winnipesaukee in my life. Nor do I think any current poster needs to worry much about it in their lives."

Bear Islander please point to the law you speak of. I have searched and I can not find any 500hp limit that was enacted. There was talk of one but I did not see any mention of it in the Alabama Boating Regulations.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Bear Islander please point to the law you speak of. I have searched and I can not find any 500hp limit that was enacted. There was talk of one but I did not see any mention of it in the Alabama Boating Regulations.

Yes, BI please post your source. I cannot find anything on any website and Alabama boaters on another forum never heard of it.

I will tell you that Alabama has these pretty scary limits on some mid-sized lakes:

Beginning October 1, 2006, there is an absolute ban on recreational vessels that are BOTH (a) greater than 26 ft-11 inches and (b) are “rated by the manufacturer for or capable of a top speed in excess of” 60 mph. No exceptions except general exceptions listed in last item below.

Beginning July 1, 2007, there is a general ban on:
(a) “houseboats” (“residence boats” defined under current msd law as “any structure used primarily for habitation located on any waters in the state, floating or supported totally or partially on pilings” and recreational vessels that constitute a fully equipped dwelling similar in content to a mobile home with an msd, galley, and sleeping quarters) and

(b) recreational vessels over 30 ft-6 inches in length, as determined by the straight line distance between the ends of the boat, excluding bowsprits, outboard motor brackets, rudders, or other attachments.

Lucky it only applies to three lakes and they are smaller than Winnipesaukee. It doesn't apply to their bigest lakes.

Thanks BI for reminding me of this:



You raised the call to action to prevent laws like this from coming to New Hampshire. Thanks again.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Bear Islander please point to the law you speak of. I have searched and I can not find any 500hp limit that was enacted. There was talk of one but I did not see any mention of it in the Alabama Boating Regulations.

I was sent an quote from a friend at offshoreonly.com. I will check it out but it might not be till after the Marathon.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Below are recent quotes by others about a horsepower limit. I posted an example of it happening somewhere else. You agree with them so you think their posts are OK. You disagree with me, so you perceive my posts as inflammatory.

"I highly doubt we will ever see that limit, especially on Lake Winni."

"Speed Limits, sure I see it happening, (obviously). HP limits? Way way way too much money at stake for the state of NH to even consider it. They'd be cutting off their nose/face/head etc. You can spin the tourism vs Speed Limit argument in your favor to actually make some people believe it but even the dumbest politician would belly laugh at the idea of HP limits on Winni. For reasons already posted here but NH would never deliberately kill the many businesses who rely on large horsepower boats to do business on the lake."

"A horsepower limit, not in my lifetime, not on Winni. Squam and smaller lakes absolutely. Winni is too large a body with too much economic impact at stake."

"I'm 60 years old. I seriously doubt I will see a horse power limit on Lake Winnipesaukee in my life. Nor do I think any current poster needs to worry much about it in their lives."

You want to know why someone accuses you of inflaming others and you post some second hand unconfirmed snide remark like this?

"Eleven of the largest lakes in Alabama now have a 500 Horsepower limit. I wonder how many people believed that could never happen?"

Then you wonder why your credibility gets questioned? Look we all know how passionate you are about this stupid speed limit but come on, when you have to invent things to back your point it speaks volumes about your position.

[Bear Islander]

Why do you make a stupid insulting comment like that when you already have posted that you found a reference to it.

This is not the New York Times, I don't need two sources before I post. Besides I have an opposition team out there that will check up on everything I post.

[Cal]

500 hp in a 20' boat could be a real fun ride

[Islander]

If they prohibit having a head and galley. Boats must be under 26' 11" and boats can not be capable of going over 60 mph. Then why do they need a 500 HP limit?

Is there a boat that meets the first three restrictions and is over 500 HP?

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Why do you make a stupid insulting comment like that when you already have posted that you found a reference to it.

This is not the New York Times, I don't need two sources before I post. Besides I have an opposition team out there that will check up on everything I post.

Now you're just angry because you were caught in a lie. Grow up will you. Your credibility is in shambles, enough is enough. I can speak for a vast majority of people who are fed up with all of your spinning. Now we can add out and out fabrication.

BTW I found one mention of a rumor about it but that's like claiming anything said here is fact. What a joke.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by lakershaker

"...My point in proposing this was also in response to ways to control large boats and their impact on the lake..."

How about "Impact Fees"?

Originally Posted by Cal

500 hp in a 20' boat could be a real fun ride

400 horsepower in a bigger boat produced this magazine report:

"A few years ago I had the misfortune to test the Baja Hammer...That experience etched an indelible memory of a boat that was impossible to hold in a straight line and that bucked like a rodeo bull...Plagued by chine walk and spontaneous skips she was one of the most evil handling boats I have ever driven...,"

Originally Posted by hazelnut

"...You want to know why someone accuses you of inflaming others and you post some second hand unconfirmed snide remark like this...?"

You may recall Sunsation's factory representative and his comment about Sunsations on a Maine lake as being "too much boat for that lake"?

Here's a comment at a Sunsation forum:

This ban keeps all Sunsation's from boating on [Lake Martin, in Alabama]. If you have any "pull" or wish to help out, let me know. This law includes me, three 32's, two 28's and the 43 with 600's. That 43 is going to this lake...and may affect another five lakes...]"

"Pull"?

Alabama has boating elitists?

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

"...Eleven of the largest lakes in Alabama now have a 500 Horsepower limit. I wonder how many people believed that could never happen...?"

Alabama's Lake Martin is 40,000 acres.

Originally Posted by jrc

"...I will tell you that Alabama has these pretty scary limits on some mid-sized lakes...:"

Lake Martin is 40,000 acres—Winnipesaukee-sized.

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

"...Surprisingly, the 220' Mount Washington leaves a pretty dull wake..."

YES IT DOES! How it has achieved "urban-myth" status here is beyond me.

Some days, it passes me twice—most often when the wind dies!

[Woodsy]

Those lakes in Alabama that you so gleefully use as examples of HP limits are NOT OWNED by the people of Alabama.... They are owned by Alabama Power Co.! The HP limit came about because of the liability concerns of the Power Company....

A quick quote from thier website....

"Attention Property Owners
Alabama Power holds property rights around the lake as required by the Federal Government. So before you begin construction, make changes or additions to any structures or the shoreline, you need to call Alabama Power Company for a permit. An Alabama Power representative will meet with you. To schedule an appointment, call 1-800-LAKES-11 (525-3711) (in Birmingham, 257-1077) or visit shoreline management."

Imagine if that were the case here? YIKES!! BI & APS would have to answer to a Power Company!


Woodsy

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

400 horsepower in a bigger boat produced this magazine report:

Yeah , so what's your point? Poorly designed boat , experienced writer and inexperienced boater?
I had a FourWinns 211 Liberator from 1993 till 2000 with 625 hp that could stand the needle of an 85mph speedo straight down(no gps yet) and it handled like it was on rails. OMG , I'm starting to sound like Evenstar but with an indestructible Liberator instead of a Sea Kayak

BTW 79* to 83* here today and headed out on the Chesapeake today for a lunch run. I'll see If I can push some warm weather your way

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Those lakes in Alabama that you so gleefully use as examples of HP limits are NOT OWNED by the people of Alabama.... They are owned by Alabama Power Co.! The HP limit came about because of the liability concerns of the Power Company....

A quick quote from thier website....

"Attention Property Owners
Alabama Power holds property rights around the lake as required by the Federal Government. So before you begin construction, make changes or additions to any structures or the shoreline, you need to call Alabama Power Company for a permit. An Alabama Power representative will meet with you. To schedule an appointment, call 1-800-LAKES-11 (525-3711) (in Birmingham, 257-1077) or visit shoreline management."

Imagine if that were the case here? YIKES!! BI & APS would have to answer to a Power Company!


Woodsy

I didn't know and don't care who owned the lakes in Alabama. They are just an example of what is happening out there, as Woodsy knows very well. Horsepower limits, houseboat restrictions, length limits, manufacturers maximum listed speed, what does it matter. They all add up limits on big boats. If you go to offshoreonly.com you can read post after post about high performance boats being regulated off of lakes.

I guess the question is why am I warning you about what is coming? OK, I will stop.

[Nauset]

What gets me is all the fuss some property owners make about the impact of having boats on the lake basically two days a week for three or four months a year. But on the other hand we have much of the shore line filled with camps, cottages, and now mega mansions at an increasing rate with their fertilized lawns on cleared lots with all the runoff, septic systems leaching into the water shed, sandy beaches and on and on. Until these property owners rip down their buildings and replant all the trees that prevent erosion they should not utter a word about someone else enjoying the lake. It chalks up to a few well connected, well funded, loud mouths with elitist thoughts that they should be calling all the shots. It’s more about the hidden agenda of having it all and keeping it exclusive and not sharing. I said it before, the definition of an environmentalist is someone who already built his vacation home.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Nauset

What gets me is all the fuss some property owners make about the impact of having boats on the lake basically two days a week for three or four months a year. But on the other hand we have much of the shore line filled with camps, cottages, and now mega mansions at an increasing rate with their fertilized lawns on cleared lots with all the runoff, septic systems leaching into the water shed, sandy beaches and on and on. Until these property owners rip down their buildings and replant all the trees that prevent erosion they should not utter a word about someone else enjoying the lake. It chalks up to a few well connected, well funded, loud mouths with elitist thoughts that they should be calling all the shots. It’s more about the hidden agenda of having it all and keeping it exclusive and not sharing. I said it before, the definition of an environmentalist is someone who already built his vacation home.

Nauset

So if someone gave you a lakefront cabin what would you do?

Your main options would seem to be sell it, live in it, or tear it down and plant trees. If your answer is the latter, I don't believe you.

If you would sell or live in it, then who is living in a glass house!



I have a moderate cabin on pilings, legal septic, no grass, no fertilizer, no landscaping, no beach. But you say I need to tear that down before I am allowed to "utter a word" about boating restrictions. What version of the Constitution did they teach you in school?

[Nauset]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Nauset

So if someone gave you a lakefront cabin what would you do?

Your main options would seem to be sell it, live in it, or tear it down and plant trees. If your answer is the latter, I don't believe you.

If you would sell or live in it, then who is living in a glass house!

You missed one option and the point! I would use it, and enjoy it, and not try to infringe on other people's enjoyment with an excuse of protecting the environment or public safety.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Nauset

You missed one option and the point! I would use it, and enjoy it, and not try to infringe on other people's enjoyment with an excuse of protecting the environment or public safety.

Suppose after using it for a few years you become convinced that public safety and pollution are a problem. You read the water quality reports and you are concerned about the dropping quality of your drinking water. You have had a few close calls on the lake and decide something must be done about congestion. So now you speak out for a speed or horsepower limit, and you are told, over and over, that you are lying about your real reason for that support. And people are mistakenly saying that all you REALLY want is to keep others from enjoying the lake. Would you think that was fair? Would you dislike being called a liar?

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

How about "Impact Fees"?

We have boat registration and boat fees, if you want to suggest raising the rate, have at it. The fees are based on size, type and age.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Alabama's Lake Martin is 40,000 acres.


Lake Martin is 40,000 acres—Winnipesaukee-sized.

It's mid-sized for Alabama, they have several larger lakes without these restrictions. Largest lakes for large boats, medium lakes for medium boats... maybe they are on to something.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Suppose after using it for a few years you become convinced that public safety and pollution are a problem. You read the water quality reports and you are concerned about the dropping quality of your drinking water. You have had a few close calls on the lake and decide something must be done about congestion. So now you speak out for a speed or horsepower limit, and you are told, over and over, that you are lying about your real reason for that support, and all you REALLY want is to keep others from enjoying the lake. Would you think that was fair? Would you dislike being called a liar?

Well liar is a strong word but right in this post you say that you're really concerned about dropping water quality and congestion. Yet you lobby hard on this board for laws like a speed and HP limit. These will at best tangentally, improve these things. Why not lobby for a direct solution? A ban on out-of date septics systems, stronger bans on lawn and fertilizers and a numerical limit to the number of power boats on the lake would directly address your concerns. If your concerned about wakes, why not a weight limit instead of a HP limit or better yet a ban on making big wakes.

It's all the indirection that bothers me.

[Resident 2B]

BI,

Reference your post #77 on this thread, you're quoted: "So now you speak out for a speed or horsepower limit, and you are told, over and over, that you are lying about your real reason for that support, and all you REALLY want is to keep others from enjoying the lake."

However, this is from you on another thread on the forum:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

"I" am targeting performance boats, the speed limit movement is not.

I though I was making this distinction clear, but it seems I was wrong.

I am really getting dizzy with your spins, but they good, clean entertainment!

Thanks!

R2B

[Grady223]

Woodsy says:

Those lakes in Alabama that you so gleefully use as examples of HP limits are NOT OWNED by the people of Alabama.... They are owned by Alabama Power Co.! The HP limit came about because of the liability concerns of the Power Company....

A quick quote from thier website....

"Attention Property Owners
Alabama Power holds property rights around the lake as required by the Federal Government. So before you begin construction, make changes or additions to any structures or the shoreline, you need to call Alabama Power Company for a permit. An Alabama Power representative will meet with you. To schedule an appointment, call 1-800-LAKES-11 (525-3711) (in Birmingham, 257-1077) or visit shoreline management."

Imagine if that were the case here? YIKES!! BI & APS would have to answer to a Power Company!

Grady223 says:

Lake Wallenpaupack in PA is 5,700 acreas and has 52 miles of shoreline, it is owned by the PA Power & Light and talk about restrictions, you are only allowed to go counter clockwise around the lake! We had to go 1/4 mile clockwise to get where we were going and were re-directed by the marine police to turn around and go around the entire lake - it didn't take the full 52 miles but took us out of our way at least 20 miles. I wonder if that would work at Winnipesaukee? Imagine leaving Wolfeboro and going by way of Center Harbor to get to Alton!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jrc

Well liar is a strong word but right in this post you say that you're really concerned about dropping water quality and congestion. Yet you lobby hard on this board for laws like a speed and HP limit. These will at best tangentally, improve these things. Why not lobby for a direct solution? A ban on out-of date septics systems, stronger bans on lawn and fertilizers and a numerical limit to the number of power boats on the lake would directly address your concerns. If your concerned about wakes, why not a weight limit instead of a HP limit or better yet a ban on making big wakes.

It's all the indirection that bothers me.

Tangential is better than nothing.

A stronger septic law like the "Title 5" in Massachusetts is a great idea. I believe fertilizer near the lake is already banned by the Shoreland act. A numeric limit is OK, what would be the details? Who gets to be one of the few? A weight limit instead of horsepower limit is fine by me, adds up to about the same thing.

Be prepared, there will be a lot of resistance to all those ideas.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

BI,

Reference your post #77 on this thread, you're quoted: "So now you speak out for a speed or horsepower limit, and you are told, over and over, that you are lying about your real reason for that support, and all you REALLY want is to keep others from enjoying the lake."

However, this is from you on another thread on the forum:



I am really getting dizzy with your spins, but they good, clean entertainment!

Thanks!

R2B

I'm thinking you are misreading post #77. I was supposing that Nauset was being misunderstood. That people were saying that was what he really wanted, but that it was not true.

Sorry, it may have been confusing. Then again, if you were not looking to attack whatever I post, you might have understood it better.

[Resident 2B]

BI,

I see you have edited post #77, so I can no longer read what was there.

R2B

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

BI,

I see you have edited post #77, so I can no longer read what was there.

R2B

If you look at post #80 you will see what I originally posted. You quoted it there.

When you compare the two you will be disappointed to learn that all I did was make it more clear so that others will not make the same error you did.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by jrc

Well liar is a strong word but right in this post you say that you're really concerned about dropping water quality and congestion. Yet you lobby hard on this board for laws like a speed and HP limit. These will at best tangentally, improve these things. Why not lobby for a direct solution? A ban on out-of date septics systems, stronger bans on lawn and fertilizers and a numerical limit to the number of power boats on the lake would directly address your concerns. If your concerned about wakes, why not a weight limit instead of a HP limit or better yet a ban on making big wakes.

It's all the indirection that bothers me.

GREAT POST!!!!! SO WELL SAID! I believe this surmises my feelings extremely succinctly. Thank you jrc!!!!!