No Wake

[eillac@dow]

We were having a discussion this weekend about the year that there was "No Wake" on the entire lake because of the lake level being so high. None of us (for the life of us could remember the year). Can any of you help us?

We just remember it being weeks of "no wake across the whole lake".

Thanks.

[Sal]

A look at Bizer's lake height chart shows it probably was May, 2006.

[BunchesFormula]

I believe that it was the summer of 1984 and it lasted until shortly after the July 4th time frame. I have pictures of ducks swimming where we usually sit. I also had to put some large rocks on the dock to keep it from floating away. There was also another no wake period around 1996 althought the water did not get nearly as high.

[VitaBene]

I remember being at the Naswa during one bike week in the 90s and the entire lake was a NWZ.

[jeffatsquam]

July 4th weekend 1998 entire lake nwz

[tis]

Funny how you forget years, but it WAS twice, I know that.

[Bizer]

Funny how you forget years, but it WAS twice, I know that.1984 and 1998. It was considered, but never implemented, in 2006.

[Lakegeezer]

I remember the 98 no-wake rule well. I used my boat a lot at no-wake speeds but unknown to me, the VRO oil pump on my Evenrude wasn't working well at idle speeds. The engine froze up and died, and caused me to look for the boat I still have today.

[SAMIAM]

I was out a few times durring the NWZ and noticed that the wind was whipping up 2/3 foot swells which were washing up on the shore.As I was bobbing in the waves at headway speed,asking myself if it was doing much good.

[Newbiesaukee]

2006 the Lake was very high. My recollection (always suspect) is that the regs were stated such that the 150 foot rule from shore was extended to ?500' making larger areas a NWZ. I may have the details a little off, but 2006 was the year as I just reviewed my photos from then

[Dave R]

2006 the Lake was very high. My recollection (always suspect) is that the regs were stated such that the 150 foot rule from shore was extended to ?500' making larger areas a NWZ. I may have the details a little off, but 2006 was the year as I just reviewed my photos from then


You are correct. Not many people obeyed the temporary rule though. I did.

[Newbiesaukee]

Me too. My perception is that people couldn't judge 150 feet; they didn't do better with 500 feet.

[eillac@dow]

I thank you all for responding. I had a reason for asking and based on everyone's responses.....I think my answer is 1998.

Nice that there are so many helpful people out there. Thanks again. :D

[Dave R]

Me too. My perception is that people couldn't judge 150 feet; they didn't do better with 500 feet.


I still have the markers on my chartplotter where Alton bay becomes more than 1000 feet wide.