Cabin Cruiser Operators - "WAKE UP!...no, WAKE DOWN"!

[Seaplane Pilot]

http://www.marlinmag.com/news/news/near-tragedy-should-remind-boaters-to-watch-their-wake-51792.html

I won't give them the respect of calling them "Captains", but instead will call them "Operators", just to be polite. There are a few other things I'd like to call them, but cannot do so on this family-friendly forum. A true Captain is aware of his surroundings and is responsible for all aspects related to the operation of his vessel. This includes the responsibility for their wakes. I'm in utter amazement at the complete disregard that a lot of these Cabin Cruiser operators have for other boaters, swimmers and for shorefront property. I think Marine Patrol should also publicize this rule as much as they do the Safe Passage Rule.

How can these bureaucrats sit in Concord at the DES/Wetlands bureau, dreaming up crazy ideas to protect the shorefront, such as prohibiting the cutting of brush or picking up pine needles? Look at the real problem will you. One pass by from these Cabin Cruisers does more damage to the shorefront than one property owner could ever think of causing by cutting a few bushes. Where is the outrage from these conservation groups working so hard to ramrod a speed limit? Get your heads out of the sand folks and address the real problems to the shorefront being caused by these huge Cabin Cruiser wakes - not from fast boats.

[AC2717]

I have a fairlt large 23 footer with a deep v hull and even I was getting tossed around by these un-needed monsters on a lake of Winn's size, those are made for the ocean not the lake. i would take a GF boat over these any day. They are part of the reason, not just the wind, that makes up such large waves in the lake

[MAXUM]

Actaully I'll take this a step further. The amount of wave action on the lake is due to not only the increased boat traffic, but the increased number of power boats and the overall size of them. Granted the lake can get rough from time to time, but how much of the wave action is caused by wakes created by boat traffic? Now how much of that wave action is increased due to the size of the average boat being used on the lake these days? Everyone keeps going bigger in an attempt to have a comfortable ride, yet at the same time, the bigger you go the bigger the wake you throw up behind prompting everyone into a never ending increase in boat size. I do agree that cabin cruisers do throw an enormous wake, larger than any other boat on the water, including the go fast cigarette boats. Bottom line, you can't really write laws to curb this unless certain boat types, sizes, etc.... start being regulated. That of course is not the right answer either, matter of fact I'm not sure there is a good answer. All I know is that if everyone keeps going bigger the wakes aren't going to get smaller. Being an operator of a smaller vessel on the lake I just typically stay clear of the busy areas and find that the lake is large enough to find areas less travelled.

[Dave R]

The rules against cutting brush and removing pine needles near the shore exist to stop runoff from washing things like fertilizer into the lake and ruining the water. They are not there to stop erosion. Shore erosion is a natural part of the life cycle of the lake and is only a problem for property owners, not the health of the lake. DES really does not care about the problems of property owners, only the health of the lake.

[Pineedles]

Unfortunately the biggest wave action onshore is caused by the lake's largest boat, the Mt. Washington. Don't know what the wave action looks like on other parts of the lake, but in Center Harbor the Mount's waves are the largest. They come up the highest, and break on the shore with much more force than any other boat, cabin cruisers included.

[SIKSUKR]

Was it a little rough at your place last weekend SP?Dave,I think SP's point was that he feels a lot more damage is done to the lake by big wakes than the increased runoff potential from raking a few pineneedles.I'd have to agree.

[Seaplane Pilot]

The rules against cutting brush and removing pine needles near the shore exist to stop runoff from washing things like fertilizer into the lake and ruining the water. They are not there to stop erosion. Shore erosion is a natural part of the life cycle of the lake and is only a problem for property owners, not the health of the lake. DES really does not care about the problems of property owners, only the health of the lake.

From the DES/Wetlands website:
"EROSION IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM"

Erosion is the process by which soil is carried by water or wind. When water carries soil into a waterbody, it not only fills in the waterbody but contributes nutrients that algae and aquatic weeds need to grow. When vegetation is removed or ground is disturbed, erosion accelerates, overloading the waterbody with nutrients and sediment. This can often contribute to excessive algae and aquatic weed growth, reducing the clarity and quality of the water.

I agree that DES does not care about the problems of property owners. However, according to their mission statement and various Rules and Acts, they do care about water quality and particularly erosion. What difference does it make if soils, vegetation and nutrients are entering the lake via runoff or via huge waves that are slamming into the shoreline and also up on to the horizontal plane of land? Water is running back into the lake in both cases, carrying the same particles. If you saw the amount of soil, etc., that is in the water after these waves hit, you would not believe your eyes.

[jrc]

What would a law or rule that would address your concerns look like?

The old saying "you are responsible for your wake" is a not really enough. If it's true, it's a civil liability issue. Someone would have to prove specific damage caused by negligent operation of a specific boat, that's a pretty high hurdle.

BTW calling people "operator" versus "captain" isn't really an insult. There are very few licensed captains on the lake. The few that I have met, tend to be big boat/ship ocean trained professionals and have absolutley no concern for their wake, except for no wake zones and 150' from shore. Recreational boaters who started small and worked their way up, know first hand what a big wake feels like and tend to have concern for what they in their wake.

[Dave R]

From the DES/Wetlands website:
"EROSION IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM"

Erosion is the process by which soil is carried by water or wind. When water carries soil into a waterbody, it not only fills in the waterbody but contributes nutrients that algae and aquatic weeds need to grow. When vegetation is removed or ground is disturbed, erosion accelerates, overloading the waterbody with nutrients and sediment. This can often contribute to excessive algae and aquatic weed growth, reducing the clarity and quality of the water.

I agree that DES does not care about the problems of property owners. However, according to their mission statement and various Rules and Acts, they do care about water quality and particularly erosion. What difference does it make if soils, vegetation and nutrients are entering the lake via runoff or via huge waves that are slamming into the shoreline and also up on to the horizontal plane of land? Water is running back into the lake in both cases, carrying the same particles. If you saw the amount of soil, etc., that is in the water after these waves hit, you would not believe your eyes.

I think the erosion the DES is most concerned with is rain water carrying stuff from "long" distances. It's not the erosion, per se, they worry about, it's the non-lake stuff that's carried into the lake that bothers them. I'm not saying waves don't cause erosion, I'm saying low lying brush, duff, and pine needles help to stop runoff from carrying sediment into the lake. Perhaps the same brush, duff and pine needles would stop waves from doing the same. If you remove this stuff and replace it with a lawn, or even just rake up the pine needles to keep them from being tracked into the house, you are exacerbating the problem. If left alone, the shore will eventually go back to it's natural, wave resistant state. Look around the lake at fairly untouched areas. The shore has a nice barrier of rocks up to the height of typical waves(and by "typical" I mean whatever is there, big, man-made waves are typical) and a firm layer of duff with brush growing in it right down to the edge of the rocks. Take the rocks away and clear out the brush to put in a beach or a lawn, and you make a spot for rain water to funnel all kinds of nasty stuff right into the lake. Waves are a given on a lake, man made or not, they do happen. The DES thinks man made lawns and beaches are a bigger "problem" than waves and that's why the DES would rather pursue the idea of responsible shore living than preventing waves.

If one were to leave the shore alone for 25 years while boats continue to operate on the lake, I bet the sediment you see when wakes wash ashore would be pretty much gone. Waves will make the shore to erode until ithe waves reach something solid (rocks), the old sediments will eventually settle to the bottom and new waves will beat against the new, solid shoreline rather than the artificial, soft shoreline. With a solid shoreline, the waves have nothing to stir up. The downside is that the lakeshore will expand and shore front property will be underwater in areas that are destined to erode away.

[lakershaker]

I have to agree that the cabin cruisers are much more of a problem to the average boater than the GFs. On Rattlesnake this past Sunday, the wind had picked up and there were whitecaps b/w Rattlesnake and Sleepers. Our boats were riding fine at the dock until a big crusier went by about 3/4 of a mile away, and eventually the large wake hit the shore and pounded the boats into the dock causing damage to both the dock and the boats. In this case, there was no law broken as the boat was well off the shore, but the wake traveled forever, and even with the wind generated waves wasn't diminished by the time it came ashore.

Another time last summer, our 23' bow rider was swamped at no wake speed as a big cruiser didn't slow down past LT-2. This seemed much more due to operator disinterest in others around him.

Unfortunately, while these bigger boats have a much larger impact to their surroundings, many of the owners don't have an equal amount of regard for the effect on others...

[Seaplane Pilot]

I have to agree that the cabin cruisers are much more of a problem to the average boater than the GFs. On Rattlesnake this past Sunday, the wind had picked up and there were whitecaps b/w Rattlesnake and Sleepers. Our boats were riding fine at the dock until a big crusier went by about 3/4 of a mile away, and eventually the large wake hit the shore and pounded the boats into the dock causing damage to both the dock and the boats. In this case, there was no law broken as the boat was well off the shore, but the wake traveled forever, and even with the wind generated waves wasn't diminished by the time it came ashore.

Another time last summer, our 23' bow rider was swamped at no wake speed as a big cruiser didn't slow down past LT-2. This seemed much more due to operator disinterest in others around him.

Unfortunately, while these bigger boats have a much larger impact to their surroundings, many of the owners don't have an equal amount of regard for the effect on others... There may have been no law broken per se, but a vessel (operator) is responsible for its wake and any damage done to another's property by this wake. I'll bet at least 90% of these Cabin Cruiser operators have no idea of this rule.

[Lakegeezer]

There may have been no law broken per se, but a vessel (operator) is responsible for its wake and any damage done to another's property by this wake. I'll bet at least 90% of these Cabin Cruiser operators have no idea of this rule.I think this topic has been discussed before and the conclusion was that boaters are not responsible for shoreline damage. If they are, I'd like to put in a claim for a yard of topsoil to replace what was removed by wake.

[Seaplane Pilot]

I think this topic has been discussed before and the conclusion was that boaters are not responsible for shoreline damage. If they are, I'd like to put in a claim for a yard of topsoil to replace what was removed by wake. I agree- they are not held responsible for shoreline damage or erosion caused by wakes. However, they are responsible for damage to physical property such as boats and docks, as well as if their wakes cause another boat to capsize. Where is the accountability?

[SweetCraft]

Seapilot,

Thank you for bringing up this issue. Dave R I hate to say that you are incorrect on this issue. Come see the waves that hit our place on Sat/Sun afternoon's. We recently had a wave from one of these boats that was 4-5 feet in height and not only swamped one of our boats but came half way into the yard flooding it. Once a small child of one our friends was knocked down on the shore line cutting her lip and chipping her tooth due to one of these beasts and its HUGE wake. Clearly these boats cause tons of erosion as well as being a safety hazard. DES needs to address it.
As for the damage/liability issue. These "operators" are liable and they are indeed responsible for any damage resulting from their wakes. Even beyond 150 feet. I checked with Marine Patrol. Chasing it and proving it however can be another matter. I am always amazed at how utterly clueless these cabin cruiser operators are. They either have absolutely no idea the utter chaos their wakes can cause with other boaters and those onshore or they don't care? The Mt. Washington goes by all the time and the wake is almost negligible ? Is it just when it is "planing up " so to speak? Not sure of that one.
Lets write to our legislators and let them know that the real issue isn't speed or GFast's but these large cabin cruisers , their draft and the resulting wakes.

[wildwoodfam]

I think this topic has been discussed before and the conclusion was that boaters are not responsible for shoreline damage. If they are, I'd like to put in a claim for a yard of topsoil to replace what was removed by wake.

You are responsible for damage caused by your boat's wake: The Navigation Rules make it quite clear that the operator of a vessel is responsible for any damage caused by the wake their vessel produces. This not only includes damage caused to other vessels, but to people, property (such as docks) and the environment as well. Use courtesy and common sense when approaching other vessels and keep you wake to a minimum.

:( Problem is - you have to witness the action, take down the bow numbers and then prove that the vessel did the damage.

Which HAS BEEN DONE - friends who had been having a lot of trouble with a specific neighbor, one with a large crusier. This neighbor would come into shore on plane and cut his engines - thus creating this enormous wash that would cut under the boat giving it a push to the dock, BUT continuing onto crash on the shore line....removing items from their docks, and beach and eroding about 2 feet of their shoreline in one season!! They set up a video camera - waited patiently then filmed the boat coming in from a Sunday cruise - caught the entire action of the wash coming ashore - went to their attorney - who contacted the marine patrol, local police, DES, and the neighbor (who referred them to their attorney). Long story LONGER - the neighbor was made to pay for damages to the dock and shorline - was fined by DES and ever since have been VERY courteous boaters (at least when putting into dock!):D

[Bear Islander]

The solution is simple.... limits. This lake is not the ocean. There is a size boat that is to large for a given lake. We can argue about what that size is, but there are boats that are to big for this lake.

You can do it with horsepower limits, displacement limits or whatever works best. The Mount has a large wake but it only goes by once or twice a day.

We need to take a step back from the bigger, faster, louder, more pollution direction we are going in.

[Seaplane Pilot]

I'm glad to see others chiming in on this subject and that it's not just me with these experiences. I have my video and still cameras handy at all times to document these situations with the big boat wakes. I had not even brought up the fact that these waves can cause serious personal injury to people and pets, should they be caught off-guard. Thanks to the others that brought this up in other posts. As I've said a million times before, a lot of these cabin cruisers are far more dangerous and destructive than the fast boats will ever be. However, I've yet to see any attention paid to the problem by the special interest groups or media. That's about to change - wait and see.:coolsm:

[Onshore]

Several of you have commented that DES does not care about the problems of property owners and the DES is only concerned with surface run-off and not with erosion resulting from boat wakes. Neither of these statements is true. DES has been given the authority to control that activities that occur on the land adjacent to and under surface waters in order to prevent erosion, regardless of the cause, and protect water quality. DES has never been given the authority to regulate boating activities. That authority lies solely with the Dept of Safety. A large part of the rationale behind the movement to place greater protections on shoreline cover is that the vegetation will help property withstand the ever increasing boatwakes. The thicker the root systems the better. Woody stemmed shrub root systems are more dense than those of trees and for that reason are of great value at the waters edge.

In short it comes down to trying to do the best you can with what you have. DES has the ability to control what individuals cut, plant, or build in the shoreland so that is where they focus their attention.

[Dave R]

Several of you have commented that DES does not care about the problems of property owners and the DES is only concerned with surface run-off and not with erosion resulting from boat wakes.

I think it was just me, actually. My point was not to condone big wakes, I was trying to point out that following the DES guidelines makes the shore more able to handle big wakes. Also, to point out that the DES does not mind one bit that thier recommendations might mess up your view or beach.

I think the laws that make captains liable for wake damage ought to be enforced. There's no need for giant wakes on the lake.

[GWC...]

The solution is simple.... limits. This lake is not the ocean. There is a size boat that is to large for a given lake. We can argue about what that size is, but there are boats that are to big for this lake.

You can do it with horsepower limits, displacement limits or whatever works best. The Mount has a large wake but it only goes by once or twice a day.

We need to take a step back from the bigger, faster, louder, more pollution direction we are going in.
The Mount operates 7 days a week.

Most cabin cruisers operate during the weekend - Saturday and Sunday.

That's two days a week compared to the Mount's seven days a week.

That makes the Mount the worst offender of the big boats on the Lake.

Be careful of your wishes. The Mount, Sophie, and Doris may soon be banned from travel on the Lake, as a result.

Then, again, codeman 671 could deliver your mail with his pontoon boat. :rolleye2:

[jrc]

Here is a thread two years ago regarding making a wake on Winnipesaukee.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1794

Nothing has really changed since then.

If the DES really wanted to make a positive impact on water quality and the environment, the first thing they would do is ban two-stroke outboards. Every drop of oil mixed in the fuel ends up in the water or the air. Everytime one goes by there's a cloud of smoke and an oil slick.

[Gatto Nero]

Unfortunately the biggest wave action onshore is caused by the lake's largest boat, the Mt. Washington. Don't know what the wave action looks like on other parts of the lake, but in Center Harbor the Mount's waves are the largest. They come up the highest, and break on the shore with much more force than any other boat, cabin cruisers included.

I couldn't disagree more. That wake is minimal in comparison to other boats 1/4 the size. It goes by my house everyday and I hardly notice a ripple on a calm day. It's not even worth the gas to get there to jump it on a jet ski. Check out Manatu sometime if you want to see a wake. That thing is a traveling takeoff ramp manufacturing machine.

[SweetCraft]

Gatto is correct.... the mount goes by our house 4-5 times per day at least and the wake is barely measurable. Does it make a wake getting up to speed? We have seen a swell of maybe 6-8 inches from it while the cabin cruiser's send in 3-4 violent waves (NOT swells) on a regular basis. If someone in one of them planes up or down ( or doesn't plane out at all because they don't know how too drive a boat) out front then FORGET IT.... LARGER waves.

[Pineedles]

We're directly across from 1/2 mile so when the Mount comes in or out, its no more than 400-500 feet away. Maybe that's what accounts for the large waves. It does only come once a week though, twice on Mondays. But come to think of it the waves do seem smaller than they were many years ago. Wonder if their using a different kind of prop or soemthing. BTW, I love the Mount and wouldn't want it to curtail its visits to Center Harbor.

Reading some of the posts about the runoff erosion seems to make alot of sense, particularly what was said about the rocky shoreline. Looking at pictures of our shoreline area 100 years ago show minimal if any erosion where we left the rocky natural shoreline alone.

[codeman671]

Then, again, codeman 671 could deliver your mail with his pontoon boat. :rolleye2:

Where the heck did that come from??? I wasn't even involved in this topic...

[Seaplane Pilot]

Was it a little rough at your place last weekend SP?Dave,I think SP's point was that he feels a lot more damage is done to the lake by big wakes than the increased runoff potential from raking a few pineneedles.I'd have to agree.

SS, it's always rough as you know. However, it's not the volume of traffic or even the size of the waves generated by 98% of the boats. It's the 2% Captain Boneheads in their Cabin Cruisers that are causing the problems. That's ok though...I've ordered my new boat (photo below) and will be passing through all the Cabin Cruiser Yacht Clubs at 0200 hrs to say hello. But of course I'll be at NO WAKE SPEED!

[Mee-n-Mac]

We're directly across from 1/2 mile so when the Mount comes in or out, its no more than 400-500 feet away. Maybe that's what accounts for the large waves. It does only come once a week though, twice on Mondays. But come to think of it the waves do seem smaller than they were many years ago. Wonder if their using a different kind of prop or soemthing. BTW, I love the Mount and wouldn't want it to curtail its visits to Center Harbor.

Reading some of the posts about the runoff erosion seems to make alot of sense, particularly what was said about the rocky shoreline. Looking at pictures of our shoreline area 100 years ago show minimal if any erosion where we left the rocky natural shoreline alone.

The present Mt Wasington makes smaller wakes than the one I knew as a kid. It's a result of the extra length they added back in '82. The worst wakes I see come from the Sophie C and Doris E. There are a few Carver/Silvertons that make quite the waves as well though I've seen some of about the same size that don't make as much ruckus as their cousins. Not sure if it's small changes in the boats or speed that make the differences I see. Certainly I've seen some operate in mush mode and through very large wakes. I'm still amazed that some choose to do this.

[Just Sold]

Seaplane Pilot when can I get a ride? :rolleye2:

Codeman breakout the ice boat and see what the wake will be without ice. :D

Seriously though. The Mount was lengthened some years ago and after that the wake it produces is far smaller. I can attest that the Sophie C and Doris E do have much larger wakes. Just ask my son about the bath he took while we were sitting for the Sopie C to pass many years ago- a 17' bow rider really dives into the wake when not underway. I had a great laugh though, I ducked down.:laugh:

It is not just large cruisers but all boats with deep vee, extended plane and other technology to give a better ride that produce large wakes. It seems to me to be boats larger than 20' that are the contributors to larger wakes. My boat at 22.5' and a deep V puts out a wake that can be large if not on plane and cruising at 25-30 mph +/-. I try but am not always successfull in preventing a wake that "attacks" the shore line. At least I know and I am aware of the wake and try to control it if I am closer to shore and outside of the 150' rule. Wake speed of course inside 150'.

Alton Bay around Sandy Point is a place where wakes are always a problem due to the path all must take. There are many other places and we all should be diligent to do the best we can and not create large destructive wakes.

As a foot note the large cruisers do put out a very large wake and their number on the lake has been increasing ever so slightly.

[Pineedles]

I don't think it was as long ago as the lengthening that I noticed the smaller shore waves, as that was 25 years ago. (oh my God) It was more recently, that's why I asked about the prop. Good thought though.

[secondcurve]

Folks:

The big boats are here to stay. Unfortunately, we all must adjust to the changes on the lake. Enjoy today, because it will be worse tomorrow.

The best defense to the current conditions is to purchase a solid deep V boat in the 22-26 foot range. This type of craft should keep you reasonably safe in most conditions you will face on Winnipesaukee. Good Luck and have a great summer.

[ApS]

Too many times while becalmed, the Mount has passed me about 200 feet away: if I hadn't been looking for the Mount's wake—I might have missed it.

It's possible that if you are on the inside of a turn that a cruiser makes, expect the wake to be much steeper and violent. While kayaking, I heard a frothy wake curl up behind me that was above my shoulders! :eek:

http://www.marlinmag.com/news/news/near-tragedy-should-remind-boaters-to-watch-their-wake-51792.html
From the article:
"The ski boat, which only had about 12 inches of freeboard, was swamped with little warning and both passengers plunged into the water, scrambling to grab life jackets or anything else that could help them stay afloat."

"Twelve inches of freeboard" is about what every canoe has.

I've noted previously (some would say complained) ;) that my entire wooded shoreline acre is slowly losing its soil to erosion. Yes, some is due to the rare storm directly out of the north—like what struck here July 6th, 2000 at 4:28PM. But every warm weekend, without fail, a train of oversized cruisers—that weren't here in 1991—will churn my shoreline into muddy murkiness. How can their wakes continue to draw mud from the shoreline year after year?

Even gentle rains—like yesterday's—gradually replaces soil and duff from the woods uphill. And every weekend, the "replacement mud" gets washed into the lake by cruisers. Fortunately, this entire mile of shoreline is too shaded and rocky to promote exotic milfoil growth (like the same-facing shoreline of Rattlesnake Island).

"...To make matters worse, both offending vessels left the scene without offering assistance..."
I'm grateful that a 3/8" mooring line snapped that secured my family's two-ton sailboat to the dock here. There's a good chance the dock would have been pulled off the pilings by a wake that one cruiser left behind.

We caught up to that cruiser ½-mile away as he was setting a second anchor to a shoreline tree. He seemed genuinely sorry, but four hours later, he sped away with the same disregard. Could this pennant—flown by many Winnipesaukee cabin cruisers—be part of the problem?
http://www.burgeeshoppe.com/BoatFunFlags/CocktailTime.jpg

I hope that a warning is placed at those distant marinas and yacht clubs that support such lake-oversized boats; otherwise, I'd support an RSA keeping such boats to headway speed 1000' from shorelines: NHDEA rules on breakwaters are too burdensome for residents in bays and coves.

"...Each cabin cruiser was violating the no wake zone,and both were throwing 3- to 4- foot- high wakes..."
When those wakes collide with each other, the resulting wake—though brief—can be double that height: some time, follow a pair that are "racing" side by side. :rolleye1:

From a Google search last season, only one court case regarding wake damage could be found. It occurred in Maine and involved a fatality.

[chipj29]

Here is a thread two years ago regarding making a wake on Winnipesaukee.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1794

Nothing has really changed since then.

If the DES really wanted to make a positive impact on water quality and the environment, the first thing they would do is ban two-stroke outboards. Every drop of oil mixed in the fuel ends up in the water or the air. Everytime one goes by there's a cloud of smoke and an oil slick.
I believe this to be untrue. Can you post a link to back up your claim?

[Mink Islander]

I couldn't disagree more. That wake is minimal in comparison to other boats 1/4 the size. It goes by my house everyday and I hardly notice a ripple on a calm day. It's not even worth the gas to get there to jump it on a jet ski. Check out Manatu sometime if you want to see a wake. That thing is a traveling takeoff ramp manufacturing machine.


I agree with Gatto Nero. Have you ever seen the wake of the MV Bear that serves the two YMCA camps on Bear Island. Humongous.

And how about the mammoth Marine Patrol boat? Two falls ago, on a calm and quiet day, that monster went by in front of my place, a few thousand feet out. It's wake was so large that it lifted my 25 foot bowrider (on it's mooring whips, but not as tight a usual), and tossed it violently against the dock posts damaging the gel coat on the rear side of the boat. The bill was several hundred dollars to repair the damage.

Of course the big cabin cruisers are frequent and habitual captain boneheads in this regard. I had one plow by me last weekend while I was fishhing maybe at most hundred feet off my starboard (I could have hit him with a beer bottle close). He seemed to be running at a speed designed to create the biggest possible wake. (no worries about fuel prices there). I had to turn into his wake and risk fouling my lines rather than get swamped by the giant rollers he produced. He and his wife seem to enjoy watching my boat get tossed by his wake. I have a 17 foot Montauk. The lack of consideration from boats that size is consistently awful. I used to think they were just clueless. Arrogance is probably more likely the root cause.

Ah but you can't legislate common sense or courtesy.

[Gatto Nero]

I don't know about "every drop" but it's not hard to find lots of information about how bad 2 strokes are for the environment. Here are just the top few from a Google search. Number 2 on the list was from our own DES.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/science/sandemay00/article1_e.html

http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/ard/ard-31.htm

http://www.wavelengthmagazine.com/1997/am97two.php

[Mink Islander]

I couldn't disagree more. That wake is minimal in comparison to other boats 1/4 the size. It goes by my house everyday and I hardly notice a ripple on a calm day. It's not even worth the gas to get there to jump it on a jet ski. Check out Manatu sometime if you want to see a wake. That thing is a traveling takeoff ramp manufacturing machine.


I agree with Gatto Nero. Have you ever seen the wake of the MV Bear that serves the two YMCA camps on Bear Island. Humongous.

And how about the mammoth Marine Patrol boat? Two falls ago, on a calm and quiet day, that monster went by in front of my place, a few thousand feet out. It's wake was so large that it lifted my 25 foot bowrider (on it's mooring whips, but not as tight a usual), and tossed it violently against the dock posts damaging the gel coat on the rear side of the boat. The bill was several hundred dollars to repair the damage.

Of course the big cabin cruisers are frequent and habitual captain boneheads in this regard. I had one plow by me last weekend while I was fishhing maybe at most hundred feet off my starboard (I could have hit him with a beer bottle close). He seemed to be running at a speed designed to create the biggest possible wake. (no worries about fuel prices there). I had to turn into his wake and risk fouling my lines rather than get swamped by the giant rollers he produced. He and his wife seem to enjoy watching my boat get tossed by his wake. I have a 17 foot Montauk. The lack of consideration from boats that size is consistently awful. I used to think they were just clueless. Arrogance is probably more likely the root cause.

Ah but you can't legislate common sense or courtesy.

[jrc]

First of all, I know that there are new super clean two-strokes around, but I'm talking about the old tried and true engines. Cheap, reliable, easy to fix, last forever and dirty as hell.

"Every drop of oil mixed in the fuel ends up in the water or the air"

Well this statement is common sense, you mix gas and oil, then put it in the gas tank. When you are done riding it's gone, where did it go? Either in the air or the water. Some of it is burned and some of it is still unburned. Here are some links:

http://www.bluewaternetwork.org/reports/rep_pl_pwc_missionbay.pdf
http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/ard/ard-31.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/23/tech/main509964.shtml

"Everytime one goes by there's a cloud of smoke and an oil slick"

This statement is my observation but I'm not alone:

http://www.ec.gc.ca/science/sandemay00/article1_e.html
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6793672

I still miss my old two-stroke dirt bike, but you have to move on.

[Aubrey]

Folks:

The big boats are here to stay. Unfortunately, we all must adjust to the changes on the lake. Enjoy today, because it will be worse tomorrow.The big boats may not be here to stay. A law passed by the legislature or an administative rule adopted my the Department of Safety and they are gone. Many New Hampshire lakes have horsepower limits and plenty of people where angered and had to remove their boats from the water as a result.

A horespower limit could be fazed in over many years or an exception made for boats already operatining in Winni.

The important thing is to see that even LARGER boats don't start showing up. Ten years from now we could be looking back at 2007 as being the good old days before the big boats arrived.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Operation of Boats
Section 270:29-a
270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats. – Any person who shall operate a power boat upon any waters of the state in a careless and negligent manner or so that the lives and safety of the public are endangered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Source. 1981, 353:12, eff. Aug. 22, 1981.

Seems to me that these huge waves are endangering the lives and safety of the public.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

Sounds like some of you could substitute posts from last year with "GFLB" and insert "cruiser" this year. As I and others have said many times, its the operator not the boat. The last few years all the performance boats were lumped together, this year's target seems to be cruisers. Lets target ignorant, irresponsible boaters of all types of crafts and focus on the real issue. Just curious how many of you are members of any of the various organizations around the lakes region that promote boating safety (PM me and I'll give you a list). I prefer to donate my time to promote safety rather than complain. I remember the Black Panthers from the 60s and 70s; "You're either part of the problem or part of the solution".

BTW, from my observations the Dorris E and Sophie C throw some of the biggest wakes, but I forgot, they're nostalgic. Has anyone written to Mount Washington Cruises? (I haven't because it doesn't bother me). Summer and life are just to short.

Off my soapbox, over and out;)

[Seaplane Pilot]

Sounds like some of you could substitute posts from last year with "GFLB" and insert "cruiser" this year. As I and others have said many times, its the operator not the boat. The last few years all the performance boats were lumped together, this year's target seems to be cruisers. Lets target ignorant, irresponsible boaters of all types of crafts and focus on the real issue. Just curious how many of you are members of any of the various organizations around the lakes region that promote boating safety (PM me and I'll give you a list). I prefer to donate my time to promote safety rather than complain. I remember the Black Panthers from the 60s and 70s; "You're either part of the problem or part of the solution".

BTW, from my observations the Dorris E and Sophie C throw some of the biggest wakes, but I forgot, they're nostalgic. Has anyone written to Mount Washington Cruises? (I haven't because it doesn't bother me). Summer and life are just to short.

Off my soapbox, over and out;)

You are absolutely correct - it's the operator, not the boat. Thanks for the reminder. SP

[SweetCraft]

Unfortunately it is more than just the operator. These deep hull , heavy cabin cruisers 30 plus feet are just too big for this lake and displace too much water getting up and off plane even when properly operated. Thats the bottomline unfortunately. You wouldn't have a certain size boat in your bath tub.... there just too big. We will need to limit the size and number soon. Its coming. Sorry for the bad news.

[Gatto Nero]

In the case of the Manatu that I mentioned above I really don't think it has much to do with the operator. That boat has a displacement hull so it's never going to plane out, no matter what the captain does, so it's always going to leave a huge wake at cruising speed. For the record, I'd don't much care about the size of the wakes as they don't cause me any problems. Now if someone would please get the wind to ease up............ :rolleye2:

[Gavia immer]

All I know is that if everyone keeps going bigger the wakes aren't going to get smaller. Being an operator of a smaller vessel on the lake I just typically stay clear of the busy areas and find that the lake is large enough to find areas less travelled.
You need a bigger boat! ;)

[Paugus Bay Resident]

Unfortunately it is more than just the operator. These deep hull , heavy cabin cruisers 30 plus feet are just too big for this lake and displace too much water getting up and off plane even when properly operated. Thats the bottomline unfortunately.
Your opinion, which of course you are entitled to, and with which I happen to disagree. The fact is, people are entitled to have whatever kind of boat they want on the lake. Provided it meets legal requirements of course.

BTW, the operator chooses when, where and how (tabs, etc.) to get on plane. They choose whether or not to do it in a courteous and responsible manner.

What do you propose we do? Ban all boats over a certain length or displacement or hull configuration (planning vs displacement)? Shades of an all too familiar debate of the past on a similar topic.

[Knot Droolin']

Ok, so the question begs to be asked:

In all of our minds, what is too big of a boat?

[TomC]

Ok, so the question begs to be asked:

In all of our minds, what is too big of a boat?


easy: "the next size up"

[tis]

Well, we can ban the GF boats, cruisers, then smaller boats who aren't on plane too close to the shore. How can we ban the wind, which does a pretty good number on shorelines?

[Silver Duck]

I've been waiting for this since certain of the "No performance boats" crowd made it clear a couple of years ago that cruisers were to be their next target.

So far as I'm concerned, the question which truly begs to be asked is where some folks get off thinking that their convenience in enjoying Lake Winnipesaukee in their chosen manner outweighs the ability of other folks to enjoy the lake in a diferent way. :rolleye1:

Seaplane Pilot, since you saw fit to start this discussion with a reference to a non-Winnipesaukee incident, I'll counter by referring to the recent collision down in Louisiana between a seaplane and a small boat. Since seaplanes undeniably have litttle ability to manouver to avoid a collision once they're up on step during takeoff or have irrevocably committed to a landing, it could justifiably be said that at, certain times, they constitute a menace to navigation and boater safety.

Nobody really needs the convenience of being able land on the lake and taxi up to their dock; for folks who want to fly in, their plane could land at the Laconia airport. (It could easily be said that airplanes belong in an airport, the way that some folks are saying the cruisers belong in the ocean.) Perhaps seaplanes should be banned from Winnipesaukee for the safety of all? :confused: (No? Didn't think so. :D)

Now, as I recall, the cruisers in that link were in a no wake area and, if they were on Winnipesaukee, would have been too close to the other boats to be above now wake speeds to boot. (I suspect that they must have been related to Captain Bonehead. ;)) Here, I fully agree that anybody who operates their boat in an unsafe manner needs to be caught, fined, and, if they won't learn from that experience, lose their right to operate a boat on the lake. But, for heaven's sake, penalize the operator, not everybody who owns the same kind of boat!

Silver Duck

[Island Lover]

Your opinion, which of course you are entitled to, and with which I happen to disagree. The fact is, people are entitled to have whatever kind of boat they want on the lake. Provided it meets legal requirements of course...



I think you may have missed the point. We are talking about CHANGING the legal requirement. Lots of lakes limit boat size with horsepower limits. I would have preferred that over speed limits as it kills two birds with one stone.

And the only people that NEED to use boats are us islanders.

How big is to big? That's easy, any boat bigger than mine is to big.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

And the only people that NEED to use boats are us islanders.

That presupposes that you NEED to have island property. I assume you want it, as do people who want larger boats.

My solution is that we drain the lake and make everyone happy :) No more worries over speed limits, boat sizes, McMansions, fertilizers, etc. Problem solved.

[MAXUM]

You need a bigger boat! ;)

I know - I'm thinking of bumping up a little bit in size. May pull the trigger next year. With gas prices as they are, I'd prefer to deal with a smaller package with a cheaper daily operating cost.

[Outlaw]

And the only people that NEED to use boats are us islanders.

There are only two things in life anyone absolutely NEEDS, food and shelter. The rest are wants and desires we all indulge in based on our financial and emotional abilities. You don't need an island property, you don't need a boat of any kind or size, you don't need to come to Lake Winnipesaukee, all of these are choices we make and every choice has a trade off.

I suppose if you take the island property and the absolute need for a boat to the extreme, than an inflatable muscle power (paddling) boat would suffice the requirement, thus eliminating all potential for complaints and concerns; no pollution, no motors, no wakes, no nothing.

It is entirely possible to limit size, but what you can not limit is the size of the already "existing" boats on the lake. This would more than likely fall under a grandfather clause like many of the improvements and changes around our beautiful lake; permanent docks of certain sizes, cutting of trees, building new homes often fall under a grandfather clause when there was an existing structure, septic and well placement.....the list goes on.

Winni has become an increasingly desirable destination for many people over the last decade and more people means more traffic, not only on the roads but on the water as well. The driving habits of individuals on the road are the same habits exhibited on the water.

And don't forget, for many people with cabin crusiers, these are their second homes, it's one way to be able to afford water front property

I think this is one instance where "size doesn't matter". :rolleye2:

[gtxrider]

Outlaw I agree. Isn't it strange that quite a few people complained about the seat belt law and how the government was sticking their noses in our personal freedom? Now it seems we want the goverment to limit the size of boats on the lake. Be careful what you ask for. Perhaps they would like the size of our vehicles mandated. We can get along driving a car that goes 0-70 in under an hour with no air conditioner and an AM radio.

[ApS]

I've been waiting for this since certain of the "No performance boats" crowd made it clear a couple of years ago that cruisers were to be their next target.

So far as I'm concerned, the question which truly begs to be asked is where some folks get off thinking that their convenience in enjoying Lake Winnipesaukee in their chosen manner outweighs the ability of other folks to enjoy the lake in a diferent way. :rolleye1:
You and I frequent the same cabin cruiser website where complaints between GFBLs and cabin cruisers are frequent. (And where the seaplane crash was referenced.)

Just this month at that site, the cabin cruisers are complaining of noisy, late-night, high-speed runs by GFBLs through no-wake zones where the cruiser types are sleeping. The GFBLs state "their legal right" to boat in anything they want to, and that their wakes are small. The cabin cruisers complain about fishermen, kayakers, and Jet-Skis in narrow channels. The GFBLs state wakes left by cruisers at any planing speed are a hazard to them, and that cruisers ignore no-wake zones until inside their marinas.

When I opened my Popular Science magazine this month, I found a full-page ad for "Discover Boating" (http://www.discoverboating.com/search.aspx?q=popular-science").

What a strange ad, I thought—who needs to "discover" boating :confused: .

The site is sponsored nationally by NMMA (American boat builders) who are seeing an increasing rejection of family boating by Americans! :eek:

The fact is, people are entitled to have whatever kind of boat they want on the lake.
"Entitlement" seems to be an issue: Winnipesaukee boaters with long memories remember when none of these issues were prominent.

The bottom line is that a few "excessive boats" are ruining boating for many—and not just here.

:(

[ITD]

I think you may have missed the point. We are talking about CHANGING the legal requirement. Lots of lakes limit boat size with horsepower limits. I would have preferred that over speed limits as it kills two birds with one stone.

And the only people that ARE ENTITLED to use boats are us islanders NOT THE REST OF YOU RIF-RAFF.

How big is to big? That's easy, any boat bigger than mine is to big.

There, I corrected the wording for you... I love it when you show your true colors, Senators and Representatives, look above at what the speed limit debate is really about.

[snowbird]

I estimate 10' of my waterfront has been lost to shorefront erosion in recent years----at least since the last survey. I wonder if all islanders have the same result and how much our appraisals might be reduced if land lost is accounted for. :laugh: Wouldn't apply to mainland waterfronts in the same fashion, of course. :emb:

[Island Life]

There, I corrected the wording for you... I love it when you show your true colors, Senators and Representatives, look above at what the speed limit debate is really about.


Although I thought it was offensive, I had to laugh when I read the words you changed in the quote. Look more closely at the islands (the ones not connected to the mainland by bridges). Most of the house are run down little cottages (present company included) and our boats are usually old and smallish. We're not calling anyone riff-raff.

[Island Lover]

There are only two things in life anyone absolutely NEEDS, food and shelter....

It is entirely possible to limit size, but what you can not limit is the size of the already "existing" boats on the lake. This would more than likely fall under a grandfather clause like many of the improvements and changes around our beautiful lake; permanent docks of certain sizes, cutting of trees, building new homes often fall under a grandfather clause when there was an existing structure, septic and well placement.....the list goes on....


Sorry, but you are absolutely wrong. My island home is the only home I own, it IS my shelter. I live here most of the year, it is my legal address. Therefore I NEED it under your own definition.

If I have given the impression that islanders have more rights than others to boat on Winnipesaukee, then I have done my job well. We Do!

And the Department of safety has enacted horsepower limits on many lakes. There is no grandfathering, you have to take your boat somewhere else. The department posts a list of lakes with speed and horsepower limits. If you read it you will find no consideration for existing boats.

When size limits come the opposition will do well to argue "what size" instead of "no limits". The speed limit opposition could easily have convinced the proponents to go with a higher limit, but they went with "no limits" and "live free or die" and now they have lost.

By the way, please obey the SPEED LIMIT when you go by Bear Island.

[Pineedles]

I estimate 10' of my waterfront has been lost to shorefront eroision in recent years----at least since the last survey. I wonder if all islanders have the same result and how much our appraisals might be reduced if land lost is accounted for. :laugh: Wouldn't apply to mainland waterfronts in the same fashion, of course. :emb:

Actually, snowbird the frontage could increase while the depth decreases, and we all know that property onn the lake is valued by number of shore feet. Stay with my logic OK? If the frontage is straight now and it erodes into the shoreline in a scalloped shape the actual shore frontage increases. Disecting a circle in half is a shorter distance than measuring the length of half the circumfrence. Don't mean to be a smart alec but it could be a silver lining.;) Of course the property will have little when your home washes away.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

The bottom line is that a few "excessive boats" are ruining boating for many—and not just here.

APS, well put. I've been boating here since 1958 (started in a 12' dory). There have always been large boats on this lake and there have always been fast boats on this lake (albeit neither in the numbers there are today). The difference then, IMO, was courtesy, common sense and respect.

[codeman671]

You and I frequent the same cabin cruiser website where complaints between GFBLs and cabin cruisers are frequent. (And where the seaplane crash was referenced.)

Just this month at that site, the cabin cruisers are complaining of noisy, late-night, high-speed runs by GFBLs through no-wake zones where the cruiser types are sleeping. The GFBLs state "their legal right" to boat in anything they want to, and that their wakes are small. The cabin cruisers complain about fishermen, kayakers, and Jet-Skis in narrow channels. The GFBLs state wakes left by cruisers at any planing speed are a hazard to them, and that cruisers ignore no-wake zones until inside their marinas.

I can't recall the last time I heard of a speeding GFBL going down the Weirs Channel... :rolleye2: Maybe elsewhere, not here...

Let's face it, this is about passing the buck. It always is. The GFBL's drive too fast or are too loud, the cabin cruisers make wake, the pwc dart around like flies annoying everyone, sail boats think they own the lake, paddlers do own the lake, the family boats don't know the rules of navigation...Unless all boats are banned this will NEVER go away. Is this what you want??? Maybe we should just go back to handmade birchbark canoes...




The bottom line is that a few "excessive boats" are ruining boating for many—and not just here.

:(

Very true. Could not have said it better myself. I am glad we agree on something finally... If this is truly your belief then why punish the remaining 99% of good, responsible boaters with speed limits or limitization of the type/size of boats they can own and operate. Stop the discrimination and fix the problem.

[Silver Duck]

Had to leave yesterday before finishing my comments (grand daughter's dance recital. :D )

First off, I'm not overly fond of large wakes either. Since the admiral and I weekend aboard our boat, I'm probably more inconvenienced by them than most (I doubt that many folks island or shorefront homes are actually tossed around by them. :eek: ) But, that's something that goes with the liveaboard lifestyle that we love, and the last thing I want to do is throw somebody else off the lake so my "home" won't bounce around.

I think that APS is on the right track; it seems that these days, there are way too many people (everywhere, not just on the lake) with an "I'm getting mine, and to heck with you" attitude. :( IMHO, that attitude is exemplified by both the cruiser operator who goes by with their boat squatting by the stern pushing a mound of water, and by folks who want to "hog the lake" by banishing any kind of boat they don't like!

Think back, peolpe. Over the last few years, we've had threads bashing and wanting to banish PWCs, then GFBLs, and now cruisers! :rolleye1: Seems like "my lake, and I'm not sharing with anyone that's not just like me" has become all too frequent a theme. :rolleye2:

I, for one, have become hyper-aware of my wake since the high water level threads pointed out shoreline vulnerability to large wakes, but not everybody reads this forum (more's the pity. :D ) A "consciousness raising" campaign is definitely in order, and Seaplane Pilot's "Wake Up - Wake Down" phrase is quite catchy; pehaps NHRBA could do something with it.

Perhaps that might even be asociated with a grassroots "Five Blasts for Courtesy" campaign where five horn blasts (the boating signal for danger or "I disagree with your intentions") could be used to signal displeasure with the way a boat is being operated. (Though, come to think of it, the resulting cacophony might tick some folks off worse than the wakes. :eek: )

As a comment to those who are complaining that their boats are tossed around at their docks, it is quite possible to secure them in a manner that keeps them safe if you make the effort; I know this from first hand experience.

A final note to shorefront property owners; it isn't realistic to expect to gain courtesy and consideration from somebody you're trying to throw off the lake....

Silver Duck

[Outlaw]

And the only people that NEED to use boats are us islanders.

In your orignal post you had stated, island people are the only ones who need to use boats. This is the statement I am working from.

Needs are absolutes, wants are desires; you desire transportation between the island and other land masses. When I go to the store, I want to drive my car instead of walk, but I don't need a car, I have two legs as a mode of transportation, but I desire to make the trip easier with a motor vehicle. The argument that island property people need boats is unconvincing at best, if you desire to go to other land masses my original point of an inflatable boat suffices the desire.

All choices have trade off's and island living does have it's share of trade offs, especially if there are no bridges. Shelter is a need and you wanted island property so one trade off is the challenge of transportation to other land masses, but this does not constitute island property owners to have boats and no one else. In that case, I do not live on an island I can have the use of a motor vehicle and island people can not - do you see the insanity in that logic?

If I have given the impression that islanders have more rights than others to boat on Winnipesaukee, then I have done my job well. We Do!

"Islanders have more rights", very comical. Next on the agenda is limiting the amount of people who can have island property, your logic tells us, in order for people to have a boat they have to have island property. Does the size of the island have an impact on the size of the boat one could have?

[Bear Islander]

Outlaws quote "The argument that island property people need boats is unconvincing at best, if you desire to go to other land masses my original point of an inflatable boat suffices the desire."

Let's not get silly here. Obviously island residents need boats!

In the first place an inflatable boat is a boat. Secondly a ten mile row to get groceries is unworkable.

If I have a fire or medical emergency, do I NEED a boat, or just desire one?

[Islander]

Like Outlaw, few understand what it is like to live on an island. Outlaw claims all we need is food and shelter. However our shelter is on the island, and there is no food there. Therefore we need boats. On the mainland you can drive, walk, ride a bicycle, take a cab, hop a buss etc. On an island the only answer is a boat.

To most people when there is a lakewide no wake zone, this means no joy ride. To some islanders it means add an hour to every trip. And a late ice out means you can't get to your home.

To most people boats are pleasure craft, to us they are essential transportation. Much more important than having a car on the mainland.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

The bottom line as I see it is that you CHOOSE to live on an island, you don't have too, you could live on the mainland. People who have cruisers choose to have them, they could have rowboats. What makes your choice higher in "priority" than there's?

[Islander]

The bottom line as I see it is that you choose to live on an island, you don't have too, you could live on the mainland. People who have cruisers choose to have them, they could have rowboats. What makes your choice higher in "priority" than there's?

Bringing food to your home has priority over taking a joy ride.

So does taking a sick child to the doctors or rushing a family member to the emergency room.

This is just common sence and obvious. If you can't see the difference then you need to think about it some more.

[ITD]

Who cares? Islanders need boats, so what? Does this mean that people on islands should be the only ones allowed to have boats? I think not. Does this mean that people on islands should be allowed to dictate who gets a boat? Nope. Should islanders be allowed to dictate speeds? No they shouldn't. Is the true reason for most proponents of the speed limit showing? Why yes it is, they are unhappy with the number and size of boats and feel a speed limit will reduce both.

I bought a place on Winnipesaukee knowing full well that on weekends and holidays in the summer it is a busy place. Had I wanted quieter with less boats and a speed limit I would have bought "On Golden Pond" (Squam). If you want less boats and a speed limit I suggest you buy on Squam and stop trying to turn Winni into Squam.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

Bringing food to your home has priority over taking a joy ride.
So does taking a sick child to the doctors or rushing a family member to the emergency room.
This is just common sence and obvious. If you can't see the difference then you need to think about it some more.

You're either missing my point or choosing to ignore it. You CHOOSE to live on an island, you CHOOSE to have children, etc. Thankfully, you have the right to be able to make those choices and I have defended that right. I have the right to have an 80 foot boat on this lake. What about the people that would rather have a weekend cruiser to spend weekends (weeks) with their children than buy island property?


What makes your right to choose any higher in the grand scheme of things than mine? You seem to imply (sorry if I'm misinterpreting) that you have some inalienable right to live on an island and go back and forth at the expense of me having whatever kind of boat I'd like. Accept equality of choice (and freedom) and enjoy life (isn't that why you're on an island?).

My point, for my final time, is that its all about choice; your's is backed by the same higher moral authority than mine. We only make different choices (for different reasons).

[Outlaw]

The implication that island people have more rights is ludicrous, it's no more than a lashing out, and could even be construed as prejudice. Why would a person on an island deserve to have a fuel powered boat? Row or paddle you way to shore, it gets the job done. Is it realistic in the 21st century, probably not, but stating that a select few have greater rights than the masses, would this not be considered.........?

Why couldn't we impose a restriction on the size and type of boat island dwellers can have - an inflatable meets the basic requirements. Don't agree - than why should the same imposition be made on everyone else?

Freedom of choice is what we all have. I think if I were ever to maroon myself and become an island dweller, my mode of transportation would be helicopter, so I wouldn't need a boat. ;)

[Silver Duck]

Island Lover (or, others with an answer)

I'd be quite curious to see the specific RSA(s) which grant special rights to island residents. Could one of you point me in the right direction? :confused:

So far as I've always been taught, operating a motorized vehicle upon a public way (including operating a motor boat on public waters) is a priviledge, rather than a "right", and I'd be astounded to see an actual RSA stating differently. :rolleye2:

While a boat is admittedly a necessity for accessing island property, the island resident doesn't necessarily have to own it or be allowed to operate it. I, for one, can think of any number of instances where living on an island probably shouldn't "cut any ice", whatever, with respect to being allowed to operate a motor boat.

For instance, would you actually argue that a cronic BUI offender should continue to be allowed to operate a motor boat :eek: just because being forbidden to do so would make accessing their island home inconvenient? IMHO, this should be a case of "Tough luck; swim, paddle, or hitch a ride".

How about a scofflaw who refuses to get their safe boating certificate? Do you think that they should be allowed to operate a motor boat anyway, just because they live on an island? :rolleye1:

Or (tragically because no wrongdoing is involved) someone that's losing their eyesight or succumbing to Alzheimers or has just plain gotten too old to be able to operate a motor boat safely? :( Does living on an island make it safe to continue to operate a motor boat? (Remember, WinnFabs pushed safety as a reason to promote a speed limit!)

Now, as to your crowing about the speed limit, let me remind you that it hasn't passed. What's gone into effect is a temporary experiment in two very limited areas of the lake, while the MP evaluates whether it makes any sense. Somehow, I doubt that will suffice to drive GFBLs off the lake.

What I do strongly suspect you've accomplished is to gift a bunch of island residents with speeding tickets when they take off out of the Lovejoy Sands public docks after sunset (sometimes in pouring rain or fog) like the proverbial bats out of **** and encounter an MP boat waiting, without the blue light going, out there in the darkness. :laugh:

Do you think they'll be happy with WinnFabs? :confused: Do you think they'll continue to support the speed limit after getting nailed for what they've been allowed to do for years? :confused:

I don't. :D

Silver Duck

[Outlaw]

Three cheers for Silver Duck, excellent job.

Quack, Quack, Quack (those are the 3 duck cheers) ;)

[Skip]

...Island Lover (or, others with an answer)

I'd be quite curious to see the specific RSA(s) which grant special rights to island residents. Could one of you point me in the right direction? :confused:...

Good question....and I think we've been down this path with some of these same individuals before.

Simply stated, the State by RSA specifically states that "...no corporation or individual shall have or exercise in any such body of water any rights or privileges not common to all citizens of this state...".

I have attached the entire RSA below and highlighted the specific answer to your question in red.

Hope this helps.....:)


TITLE XXII
NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY
CHAPTER 271
PILOTS, HARBOR MASTERS, AND PUBLIC WATERS
Defining Certain Public Waters
Section 271:20
271:20 State Water Jurisdiction; Published List of Public Waters; Rulemaking. –
I. All natural bodies of fresh water situated entirely in the state having an area of 10 acres or more are state-owned public waters, and are held in trust by the state for public use; and no corporation or individual shall have or exercise in any such body of water any rights or privileges not common to all citizens of this state; provided, however, the state retains its existing jurisdiction over those bodies of water located on the borders of the state over which it has exercised such jurisdiction.
II. The department of environmental services shall prepare, maintain, and publish an official list of all public waters in the state. The commissioner of the department of environmental services shall adopt rules, pursuant to RSA 541-A, relative to this publication.
Source. 1901, 9:2. PL 152:16. RL 182:17. RSA 271:20. 1977, 24:2. 1990, 177:2, eff. June 26, 1990.

[GWC...]

Like Outlaw, few understand what it is like to live on an island. Outlaw claims all we need is food and shelter. However our shelter is on the island, and there is no food there. Therefore we need boats. On the mainland you can drive, walk, ride a bicycle, take a cab, hop a buss etc. On an island the only answer is a boat.

To most people when there is a lakewide no wake zone, this means no joy ride. To some islanders it means add an hour to every trip. And a late ice out means you can't get to your home.

To most people boats are pleasure craft, to us they are essential transportation. Much more important than having a car on the mainland.
Curious minds need to know:

Which mode of transportation do you utilize when ashore to fulfill your needs?

The lakewide no wake speedlimit is to protect your shorefront property, also, or did you forget?

Again, which mode of transportation do you utilize when ashore to fulfill your needs, if having a car on the mainland is not as important?

Some food for thought:

Try telling a homeless family living in their car that their car is not as important as your boat.

[Islander]

You see what people do when they lose an argument, they pretend it was really about something else!

Who said there were any laws giving more rights to islanders.... nobody!

Who said islanders had more rights than anybody else..... nobody!

Go back and read. The question was if islanders NEED boats. The obvious answer is - yes they do. But instead of admitting they were wrong, some people want to pretend it was about islanders having more rights than others.

We don't have more right to a boat than anybody else. We do have more NEED of a boat than anybody else.

[codeman671]

Who said islanders had more rights than anybody else..... nobody!



Maybe you should be the one that re-reads the posts...

If I have given the impression that islanders have more rights than others to boat on Winnipesaukee, then I have done my job well. We Do!

As a fellow islander I find this line of thinking ludicrous and arrogant. We choose to have island properties (definitely not a necessity) and have the same rights as people who do not. Period. We are not special. Maybe certain people (especially on parts of Bear) seem to think that they are more so than others, but here is a little tip. You are not!

By the way...

We do have more NEED of a boat than anybody else.

We NEED our boats because of our CHOICE to live on an island. If people choose to live out here year round it is their CHOICE. I am sure you can buy a nice house or condo for what your island property is worth. How's that for an option?

[Islander]

I read that and took it as a joke. But she may mean that people have more right to get to their home than others have to take a joy ride.

However there are at least 4 islanders posting in this thread, who says they are all from Bear.

Lets not start attacking people because of the island you THINK they live on.

[codeman671]

However there are at least 4 islanders posting in this thread, who says they are all from Bear.

Lets not start attacking people because of the island you THINK they live on.

Shall I say it again? Re-read.

Does my post state "only people on Bear"? Or pertain only to this thread? Historically speaking a certain group of islanders seem to be the ones spearheading many of the complaints and crusades to change the lake and the laws pertaining to it. Guess what? Many are from Bear. It's gotta be in the water...:rolleye2:

[Bear Islander]

I am from Bear

Do islanders have more rights to a boat than anybody else? Interesting question. We do have more need, and I think that should mean more accommodation. But nobody has a right to a boat or a right to operate one.

Not everybody on an island chose to live there.

The reason why Bear islanders are leading the push for speed limits is not the water.

[Outlaw]

Not everybody on an island chose to live there.

This is America, land of the free and the brave. Everything you do is a choice. Unless the island you live on is Alcatraz, my guess is you are there by choice. Even under house arrest you can be relocated off the island. I give the benefit of doubt though, because there are times when people loose control over circumstances and the result is they are forced to do things they may not ordinarily do.

All everyone is trying to communicate is we all make choices everyday, and whether you choose to live on an island, on mainland, in a tree, or forced to live on the streets, no one of these people, because of where they live, is entitled to more or less than the other.

No one needs a boat, no one needs a car, it's a choice we make because we want to have one based on our individual reasons.

What about the folks and 'their children' who do not have any property in the Lakes Region, but spend their vacations and weekends aboard their cabin cruiser (whatever the size) so they and their children can enjoy life and create wonderful childhood memories. This is their second home, this is what they chose to purchase. Are they now not entitled to have a boat on the lake because A) it's a cabin cruiser and/or B) they do not own island property?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

The bottom line is that a few "excessive boats" are ruining boating for many—and not just here. :(

Very true. Could not have said it better myself. I am glad we agree on something finally...
Oops. 'Got to fix that! :emb:

If this is truly your belief then why punish the remaining 99% of good, responsible boaters with speed limits or limitization of the type/size of boats they can own and operate.
Here's my "belief", based on NMMA's own website (http://www.discoverboating.com/marketing/dvd/default.aspx?source=commercial_dvd) (boat manufacturers trying to reverse the decline in the family boating market), plus my personal observations:

"The few" are chasing away the family boater, thereby "growing" the percentage of irresponsible boaters.

[Cal]

I am from Bear

Not everybody on an island chose to live there.



I seriously doubt someone held a gun to your head:rolleye2:

[Island Lover]

I seriously doubt someone held a gun to your head:rolleye2:

Most people are on Bear because their parents, grandparents or great grandparents chose to live there. When an ancestor buys island property in 1895 and each generation grows up on the island, did the current residents choose to live on an island? Not really.

Accommodation is the right word. The higher need requires more accommodation.

[ossipeeboater]

Most people are on Bear because their parents, grandparents or great grandparents chose to live there. When an ancestor buys island property in 1895 and each generation grows up on the island, did the current residents choose to live on an island? Not really.

Accommodation is the right word. The higher need requires more accommodation.


wow I hope not all the island owners are as arrogant as you, islander and bear islander seem to be. Just because you own on an island does not give you any more right to the lake than anyone else as established by the state law that Skip so nicely posted.

[Bear Islander]

wow I hope not all the island owners are as arrogant as you, islander and bear islander seem to be. Just because you own on an island does not give you any more right to the lake than anyone else as established by the state law that Skip so nicely posted.

Your using a very wide brush there. What statement of mine do you take offense to?

I posted "nobody has a right to a boat or a right to operate one."

I do believe that our situation requires special consideration at times. Thankfully the Marine Patrol understands the situation and towns have been very helpful by providing police boats, fire boats, public docks, mainland parking etc. Some towns even have islander only docks and parking lots.

[Island Lover]

wow I hope not all the island owners are as arrogant as you, islander and bear islander seem to be. Just because you own on an island does not give you any more right to the lake than anyone else as established by the state law that Skip so nicely posted.

If the shoe fits.....

You are very arrogant in your complaint about our arrogance.:)

I don't think my post that you quoted was arrogant at all. Sometimes the way a post is read is not the way it was intended. Your preconceived notions can insert a flavor the author did not include.

[Islander]

Your using a very wide brush there. What statement of mine do you take offense to?

I posted "nobody has a right to a boat or a right to operate one."

I do believe that our situation requires special consideration at times. Thankfully the Marine Patrol understands the situation and towns have been very helpful by providing police boats, fire boats, public docks, mainland parking etc. Some towns even have islander only docks and parking lots.

Watch Out!

Some of these guys will have Skip contact the towns and tell them the law does not allow islander only parking or docks!

And the police boat gives rides to the islands for town employees like the health officer and building inspectors, that will have to stop! The police don't give them rides to mainland property so they can't be allowed to give special consideration to island property.

That is all we are asking for here, a little consideration for an unusual situation. State and local officials get that, unfortunately it is beyond the understanding of some on this forum.

[codeman671]

Most people are on Bear because their parents, grandparents or great grandparents chose to live there. When an ancestor buys island property in 1895 and each generation grows up on the island, did the current residents choose to live on an island? Not really.

Accommodation is the right word. The higher need requires more accommodation.

Again, you chose to be there. So it was in your family, if it was passed down to you and you didn't want to be there you could sell it and profit handsomely. It is your choice to be there! You do not have to be a current resident. You don't have to be a resident at all.

Higher need? Come on...It is a priviledge to be on an island as far as I am concerned. One that many can't afford with todays property values.

You make it sound so tough to have something passed down to you. I feel bad for you.

[codeman671]

Watch Out!

Some of these guys will have Skip contact the towns and tell them the law does not allow islander only parking or docks!

And the police boat gives rides to the islands for town employees like the health officer and building inspectors, that will have to stop! The police don't give them rides to mainland property so they can't be allowed to give special consideration to island property.

That is all we are asking for here, a little consideration for an unusual situation. State and local officials get that, unfortunately it is beyond the understanding of some on this forum.

Crusading to have certain types of boats from the lake to meet their own personal agendas has nothing to do with consideration. As an islander we are entitled to certain town services to be provided such as docking for islanders as we pay our own fair share of taxes (and then some), the same as someone on the mainland is entitled to receive different services such as plowing of roads, curbside waste pickup, etc.. In Gilford, we receive islander only docks and dumpsters at the dock. There is a fire boat and the town does send inspectors out to do what is needed, although the town also receives money back from us in payment for this (taxes, building permit fees, etc). This is our "consideration".

What other consideration do you expect? It's our choice to live where we do.

[Island Lover]

Again, you chose to be there. So it was in your family, if it was passed down to you and you didn't want to be there you could sell it and profit handsomely. It is your choice to be there! You do not have to be a current resident. You don't have to be a resident at all.

Higher need? Come on...It is a priviledge to be on an island as far as I am concerned. One that many can't afford with todays property values.

You make it sound so tough to have something passed down to you. I feel bad for you.

I not sure what your problem is with island residents. Who said living on an island was tough? It's great!

What difference does it make if we chose to live here or inherited? None! I was just answering the question as to how some people got here.

As has been pointed out living on an island requires accommodations not required to mainland dwellers. And for the most part we get them. We don't get many of the town services, like schools, for our tax dollars. So it is only fair that we receive accommodations in the form of some docks, parking and a fire boat. If you think this is so unfair take it up with the towns.

The Meredith selectmen have been very good to the islands over the years. Why don't you contact them and tell them how unfair that is to other boaters.

[ossipeeboater]

Sorry, but you are absolutely wrong. My island home is the only home I own, it IS my shelter. I live here most of the year, it is my legal address. Therefore I NEED it under your own definition.

If I have given the impression that islanders have more rights than others to boat on Winnipesaukee, then I have done my job well. We Do!
And the Department of safety has enacted horsepower limits on many lakes. There is no grandfathering, you have to take your boat somewhere else. The department posts a list of lakes with speed and horsepower limits. If you read it you will find no consideration for existing boats.

When size limits come the opposition will do well to argue "what size" instead of "no limits". The speed limit opposition could easily have convinced the proponents to go with a higher limit, but they went with "no limits" and "live free or die" and now they have lost.

By the way, please obey the SPEED LIMIT when you go by Bear Island.


You have no more right than anyone else to the lake under NH law. I will agree that the towns should make certain accomadations to the island land holders because they are taxing that property therefore should be providing normal services like fire and police protection but the lakes itsel is there for everyone to enjoy not just those with a property on an island.

[ITD]

I wonder if some of these entitlement comments made it to the Meredith newspapers if the Meredith voters would be so eager to help out island residents, probably not.

[Island Lover]

that's arrogant right there.

You have no more right than anyone else to the lake under NH law. I will agree that the towns should make certain accomadations to the island land holders because they are taxing that property therefore should be providing normal services like fire and police protection but the lakes itslef is there for everyone to enjoy not just those with a property on an island.

My comment that islanders have more RIGHTS than others was incorrect and I retract it. The term I should have used, and would have if I had thought about it more, is "need accommodation".

[Skip]

...Watch Out!

Some of these guys will have Skip contact the towns and tell them the law does not allow islander only parking or docks!. ...


...You see what people do when they lose an argument, they pretend it was really about something else!...

Thank you Islander, I couldn't have said it better myself, and you did it all within the same thread! ;)

[codeman671]

I not sure what your problem is with island residents. Who said living on an island was tough? It's great!

What difference does it make if we chose to live here or inherited? None! I was just answering the question as to how some people got here.

As has been pointed out living on an island requires accommodations not required to mainland dwellers. And for the most part we get them. We don't get many of the town services, like schools, for our tax dollars. So it is only fair that we receive accommodations in the form of some docks, parking and a fire boat. If you think this is so unfair take it up with the towns.

The Meredith selectmen have been very good to the islands over the years. Why don't you contact them and tell them how unfair that is to other boaters.

Try reading my last post to Islander before writing such a ridiculous response... I am an islander! I am clear on what is requires and am fine with what the town provides. My problem is with people (in this case certain islanders) that make it sound like they were forced into this and expect the rest of the lake to bow to their every need. I will say it once again, being on an island is a priviledge (I think that makes 3 times)... The level of entitlement that certain people seem to expect is a bit over the top.

[jeffk]

Any local government has the responsibility to accept the reality of the conditions that exist in the locale that services must be provided for. For example, in a city with multistory buildings it would be negligent for the fire department not to have extensible ladder trucks. Fire services are provided to all residents. The tall buildings must be "accommodated".

However, where is the line drawn? If children live on an island must a town provide "school bus boats" or should it be the responsibility of the parents to bring the child to a shore location where the bus could pick them up?

Everyone has a some choice of where they live. Property is easily transferred. You make a choice every day to either live where you are now or move. Just because you don't want to move doesn't mean you can't. An ancestor may have made the original choice but you own it now. You also have the responsibility to deal with the consequences of your choice.

If I decide to live a remote rural area and the nearest grocery store is 20 miles away and the nearest doctor is 100 miles away am I entitled to to free transportation or a subsidized car? If I can't manage the transportation to needed facilities maybe I need to move closer to them or within an area that at least has public transportation. I probably don't want to move but I might have to.

I, for example, don't look at towns providing reserved dock space for island residents as an "accommodation" but instead as a unique perk. This is not a service provided to any other resident. If a shore resident of the same community threw his boat in the water for the day, could he use "island docking" for a while if he needed to run to the store for more soda? The town doesn't even provide me with garbage pickup. Why should they be "accommodating " anyone with free reserved docking? Why can't the island residents band together and buy a docking area for their use?

The statement " a higher need requires higher accommodation" is illuminating. My answer is, "No, it doesn't". It may require more work by the person with the needs to get what they need. They might even have to make some trade offs. If you have a serious medical condition, you might have a very high need for prompt medical service. However, by placing yourself on an island you create a barrier to that need. Is it up to the town or anyone else to meet the unique need you have created or is it up to you to move to a more accessible, although less desirable, place?

Finally, in a silly attempt to remain true to the original topic of this thread, large displacement boats can be a hazard not only to the shoreline but to other boats as well. Perhaps there should be some training and usage guidelines for these boats but I could say the same for many types of boats. I think it is unfortunate that some people can't seem to accept the responsibility for the reasonable use of the vehicles they own but we have plenty of "boneheads" out there. I just don't think it's right to punish the majority of responsible boaters for the stupidity of the few.

[Islander]

Crusading to have certain types of boats from the lake to meet their own personal agendas has nothing to do with consideration. As an islander we are entitled to certain town services to be provided such as docking for islanders as we pay our own fair share of taxes (and then some), the same as someone on the mainland is entitled to receive different services such as plowing of roads, curbside waste pickup, etc.. In Gilford, we receive islander only docks and dumpsters at the dock. There is a fire boat and the town does send inspectors out to do what is needed, although the town also receives money back from us in payment for this (taxes, building permit fees, etc). This is our "consideration".

What other consideration do you expect? It's our choice to live where we do.

I think I see what codeman's problem is. It's not about being islanders. He agrees with us about the need for special consideration. It's the fact that we support speed limits that he is angry about.

Islanders DO have a RIGHT to back any legislation they choose. Speed limits and horsepower limits are coming. And I will continue to crusade about them with or without your approval.

Skip - Not sure what your point is. For a long time this thread has been about if island residents require special consideration or not.

[codeman671]

I think I see what codeman's problem is. It's not about being islanders. He agrees with us about the need for special consideration. It's the fact that we support speed limits that he is angry about.

Islanders DO have a RIGHT to back any legislation they choose. Speed limits and horsepower limits are coming. And I will continue to crusade about them with or without your approval.

Skip - Not sure what your point is. For a long time this thread has been about if island residents require special consideration or not.

Yes and no.

I do see the need for the town to provide certain accomodations (they'd better do something for what we pay in). Does this however give us more right to the lake than others? Nope. Not at all.

You are welcome to vote on whatever you choose, just because my views on speed limits and hp limitations are not the same as yours I do not fault you on it. I do have a problem with some of the tactics that have been used to crusade for this and the underlying motives that drive this. This is another topic (one that has been covered before) for another thread...

What lit me up was the comments about having more rights to the lake than others, followed by comments of how island life was basically forced on them. People make choices and there is certain necessities in life, island living is not one of them. I am sure many people would love such a thing to be forced on them...

[Seaplane Pilot]

This thread was started to discuss the problems with large waves, not as a boxing ring between islanders and non-islanders. Now - back to the problems with large waves.:coolsm:

[Islander]

codeman

I think the word "rights" was only used once and has been withdrawn.

I think the comments about choosing to live on an island were misunderstood on both sides. One side was talking about island life being voluntary while the other was talking about how they came to be islanders. Most islanders did not "choose" island life, but love it and will not leave it.

It's kind of like religion, most people didn't choose their religion, but they stay voluntarily.

[Gatto Nero]

Most islanders did not "choose" island life, but love it and will not leave it.

Where did you find that stat?

[The Real BigGuy]

It starts talking about wakes and moves to who is entitled to what!!!

First, I'm an islander. I don't think I'm entitled to anything that everyone else isn't entitled to. When I bought, I knew what I was in for and went in with my eyes open.

Now wakes. I'm getting realy tired of people asking for laws to change what is happening around and on the lake. The plain and simple truth is that we have more then enough laws to control the issues. It comes down to enforcement. Until the MP makes a concentrated effort to enforce existing laws on speed, wake damage, no wake zones, 150' passing distances, noise, etc. nothing will get better.

We have a new speed law. Great. What good will it due if it isn't enforced, and I don't think it is enforcable.

Until operators (not boats) are severly fined and boat registrations start getting revoked the problem will not start to abate.

We tried education - can anyone really say that boater education and licenseing has improved how boats are operated? I can't. Those that operated responsibly before licensing still do and those who didn't still don't.

It is really sad but frankly, there are a lot of people out there who only care about themselves with very little compassion and empathy for others.

Unfortunately, it has become an "all about me" world that we live in and I for one have little hope that it will ever change.

[Island Lover]

It starts talking about wakes and moves to who is entitled to what!!!

First, I'm an islander. I don't think I'm entitled to anything that everyone else isn't entitled to. When I bought, I knew what I was in for and went in with my eyes open.

Now wakes. I'm getting realy tired of people asking for laws to change what is happening around and on the lake. The plain and simple truth is that we have more then enough laws to control the issues. It comes down to enforcement. Until the MP makes a concentrated effort to enforce existing laws on speed, wake damage, no wake zones, 150' passing distances, noise, etc. nothing will get better.

We have a new speed law. Great. What good will it due if it isn't enforced, and I don't think it is enforcable.

Until operators (not boats) are severly fined and boat registrations start getting revoked the problem will not start to abate.

We tried education - can anyone really say that boater education and licenseing has improved how boats are operated? I can't. Those that operated responsibly before licensing still do and those who didn't still don't.

It is really sad but frankly, there are a lot of people out there who only care about themselves with very little compassion and empathy for others.

Unfortunately, it has become an "all about me" world that we live in and I for one have little hope that it will ever change.

If you believe there is a problem, and current methods are not working, then why can't we change the laws?

For the sake of argument, how about a law that places a 500 horsepower limit on Winni effective 1/1/2013 - exceptions for commercial passenger vessels etc.

I think this ends the not enforceable argument. And boat owners have more than 5 years to make the change.

I understand that many will say this is unfair or unnecessary, But it will end the GFBL and big wave situation. If you pass this I don't think a speed limit will be necessary.

Most important it will change the direction this lake is going in. These kinds of changes are coming, it's only a matter of time.

[codeman671]

For the sake of argument, how about a law that places a 500 horsepower limit on Winni effective 1/1/2013 - exceptions for commercial passenger vessels etc.

Unless this is a per engine limit (which would limit a select few boats) the outcome of something like this could be disastrous in the economy. It could potentially put most of the dealers on the lake in serious shape or out if business. Take Irwin for instance, they do not sell performance boats but do move many day cruisers or yachts. How would this affect their sales? How would it affect the tourist industry? How would it affect your tax bill? :rolleye2: Your property value? Do you think that your house would be worth more? I think you would see a serious decline...

I would venture to say that half if not 2/3 of the boats at GYC would have to go, the same with Mountain View and many other marinas. People that dump tons of money into the local economies would be forced out. Remember that. This is a much bigger threat to the Lakes region than a speed limit.

Would I love to see the big wakes go? After seeing my 23' boat get tossed violently at my dock last weekend by a cruiser I would like a change. A NWZ would do it being that it is a tight area to begin with. I do not see banning cruisers is the answer though.

[Islander]

Sign me up for 500 hp.

There can be an exception for boats already on the lake. That way nobody needs to sell or move. But the numbers of boats and maximum size will not increase. And eventually, through attrition, most will go.

GYC can slowly transition to an increased number of smaller slips.

This will make my property worth more as the negative aspects of the lake are removed.

[Woodsy]

Perhaps the state should take all of the islands and waterfront property back thru eminent domain? Then we will eliminate 90% of the people who complain. Sure it will take some time 10 years or so and cost 4-5 Billion, but eventually all of those people who complain will have cashed out and relocated.... and the lake can be restored to its natural state.

How's that sound for ridiculous??

Woodsy

[Islander]

Woodsy

Because you don't like it does not make it ridiculous. It's easy to enact, simple to enforce and, unlike your idea, costs nothing.

The only real obstacle will be the marine industry lobby. I think you see the lake as an endless resource. More boats, more speed more pollution... no problem!

There are groups that think all power boats should be banned on the lake. That goes to far in my opinion. But something must be done and will be done. The worm has turned, you just can't see it yet.

Watch the Ellen Degeneress commercial, the desire of a few for more speed and even bigger boats will not stand up against that in the long run.

[ITD]

Perhaps the state should take all of the islands and waterfront property back thru eminent domain? Then we will eliminate 90% of the people who complain. Sure it will take some time 10 years or so and cost 4-5 Billion, but eventually all of those people who complain will have cashed out and relocated.... and the lake can be restored to its natural state.

How's that sound for ridiculous??

Woodsy

Sorry Woodsy, but I'm willing to bet that non-waterfront owner's complaints about the lake outnumber waterfront owners complaints by at least 2 to 1. A simply tally from these forums would prove that. If you were really serious about returning the lake to its natural state you would also advocate for no boats also.

Don't lump me or many other Waterfront owners in with these other whiners.

[Sunbeam lodge]

I agree. The Sophie C wake is bigger than the Mt. Washgington wake. whenever it slows down to deliver mail at Beaver Island we get a large swell that tears up our beach.

[Dave R]

There are groups that think all power boats should be banned on the lake. That goes to far in my opinion. But something must be done and will be done. The worm has turned, you just can't see it yet.

Watch the Ellen Degeneress commercial, the desire of a few for more speed and even bigger boats will not stand up against that in the long run.

Huh? Why does "something" have to be done? I guess I just don't see wakes as much of a problem considering there are things like wars, violent crime, corruption, and terrorism going on.

[Islander]

Huh? Why does "something" have to be done? I guess I just don't see wakes as much of a problem considering there are things like wars, violent crime, corruption, and terrorism going on.

Should we wait until war, crime, corruption and terrorism have been eliminated before we fix the lakes problems? That will be quite a wait!

However we are not just talking about large wakes, they are just one part of the problem. Pollution, excessive speed, noise, boating deaths, water quality, property values and quality of life will also be improved by a horsepower limit.

[Dave R]

For the sake of argument, how about a law that places a 500 horsepower limit on Winni effective 1/1/2013 - exceptions for commercial passenger vessels etc.

I think this ends the not enforceable argument.


How would you measure HP? Propshaft Dynamometers aren't cheap and pulling the engine to measure crankshaft HP is gonna be a real expensive proposition.

What's to stop folks from opening up a 1500HP GFBL commercial passenger business?

Have you seen the wake a 400 HP trawler can make at 13 knots? Can you imagine the speeds a twin 250 HP outboard powered tunnel hull can attain?

I think enforcing the existing laws would be vastly simpler and very effective. It's already against the law to operate any boat recklessly and to damage property with a wake. Make a very public example out of a few idiots and word will get around to most would-be offenders.

Most of the boaters on Winnipesaukee are very courteous and safe. Take a Summer weekend boat ride on the ICW or the CT River sometime if you want to see how good we have it in NH.

[Gavia immer]

Until the MP makes a concentrated effort to enforce existing laws on speed, wake damage, no wake zones, 150' passing distances, noise, etc. nothing will get better.

It is really sad but frankly, there are a lot of people out there who only care about themselves with very little compassion and empathy for others.

You've hit the nail on the head there.

[Islander]

How would you measure HP? Propshaft Dynamometers aren't cheap and pulling the engine to measure crankshaft HP is gonna be a real expensive proposition.

What's to stop folks from opening up a 1500HP GFBL commercial passenger business?

Have you seen the wake a 400 HP trawler can make at 13 knots? Can you imagine the speeds a twin 250 HP outboard powered tunnel hull can attain?

I think enforcing the existing laws would be vastly simpler and very effective. It's already against the law to operate any boat recklessly and to damage property with a wake. Make a very public example out of a few idiots and word will get around to most would-be offenders.

Most of the boaters on Winnipesaukee are very courteous and safe. Take a Summer weekend boat ride on the ICW or the CT River sometime if you want to see how good we have it in NH.

You may be correct, it could be that 200 or 300 hp is a better number.

Engine specifications list horsepower. And if that doesn't work there is a simple correlation to displacement. Obviously someone can modify an engine and get more horsepower than allowed. But the Marine Patrol are not stupid, you are not going to convince them that your 1500 hp GFBL is really 500 hp. If you wanted to make the law super simple you can also limit the number of cylinders. How does a maximum of 8 cylinders per boat work for you?

As to your commercial GFBL idea. If you want to get a commercial captains license, register and insure your boat commercially, have it inspected by the Dept. of Safety each year and take paying passengers... then knock yourself out.

I somebody does it I will pay to take a ride, my kids would love it.

[Silver Duck]

Thanks, Outlaw! :D And thanks to you, too, Skip, for clarifying the legal aspects of the situation (as you so often do for us!) :)

Island Lover, I'm going to startle you a bit. :eek: Now that you've clarified your stance to needing special accomodations such as ample town parking and public docks, I'm with you 100%. Island residents contribute a ton of money to the lakefront towns as real estate taxes; since you're beyond the reach of most town services, parking and docks seem little enough to ask for in return and you folks darned well deserve to get something for your tax money!

Now, as to the 500 HP limit, that might actually be counter productive with respect to wake size; let me explain my thinking on this.

First, please realize that, for most cruiser owners our boats are our lake homes, and we're just as passionately attached to them as real estate owners and for the very same reasons. We love the lake as much as anybody else (and actually live more closely with it than most!) :)

OK, let's set that aside for a bit to simmer. ;)

The reason that some of the sedan-type cruisers push the large wakes that upset everybody (including me, when these turkeys send my swim platform through a two foot arc with me on it :eek: ) is purely and simply that they aren't going fast enough to be up on a good plane and are plowing through the water, rather than skimming over it.

In some cases, the operators probably aren't aware of the relationship between getting up on a solid plane and reducing wake size :rolleye1: ; in other cases, the boats are underpowered and simply incapable of achieving a good, solid plane :( .

In either case, the large wake results from the fact that they are plowing, not planing. (You might take cold comfort, as I do, in the fact that under those conditions and at today's gas prices, those boats are moving financial hemhorages; somewhere between 1/4 and 1/2 mpg is a reasonable estimate! :eek: I also comfort myself that Captain Bonehead is truly beating the living heck out of his boat's engines under those conditions!)

Now, to merge the two thought tracks, if a 500 HP limit (truly, not enough to push a good sized cruiser onto a good plane) were to be imposed, people who love having cruisers as lake homes are just going to either buy new ones with legal sized engines or repower with smaller, legal sized engines.

Which is only going to result in more boats that can only plow through the water pushing a large wake, not get up on plane quickly and skim nicely over it leaving a reasonable wake.

Actually, equating large wakes with large gas bills should be an easy, useful, and utterly inarguable idea for WinnFabs to educate folks about, if they care to take on the project.

Granting that Captain Bonehead and his relatives sometimes aren't very big on courtesy, almost everybody cares about the contents their wallet! :D

Silver Duck

[Woodsy]

Guys & Gals...

I was just trying to interject a little humor.... sorry if i offended

Woodsy

[Island Lover]

I like this commercial GFBL idea as well. Many years ago there was a fast laker out of Weirs Beach named Miss Winnipesaukee that took people on paid rides in an earlier version of a GFBL.

I think the cylinder idea has merit. 300 horsepower or 8 cylinders maximum is fine by me.

An exception for existing boats is fair as well.

[Dave R]

I find it odd that the original intent of the this thread was to discuss ways of reducing wake damage and somehow it's evolved into a discussion about how laws should be passed that limit HP and encourage underpowered boats that make HUGE wakes. Be careful what you wish for...

[KBoater]

I think there were several Miss Winnipesaukees and the max. speed was about 35 mph. I’m not sure of these facts. Does anyone know the truth?

What is fast is very relative as I’m sure FLL will agree. My 13 foot Whaler with a 25 hp seemed fast because of your closeness to the water.

I once made it from Wolfeboro Bay to Sheps in 15 minutes :eek: in a Montauk Whaler with a 90 hp. This was with calm water.

Now I have slowed done a little with an older boat on Winnie. I am looking for a new to me boat for Florida which will be smaller. :look:

[SIKSUKR]

I think there were several Miss Winnipesaukees and the max. speed was about 35 mph. I’m not sure of these facts. Does anyone know the truth?

What is fast is very relative as I’m sure FLL will agree. My 13 foot Whaler with a 25 hp seemed fast because of your closeness to the water.

:look:

Fast is relative....and subjective.I was just on my PWC Saturday and was going 60+ on calm water.A PWC sits pretty close to the water and I feel very comfortable at that speed.Conversely,when its very choppy on the lake,40 feels very fast.Yup, good point,it is all relative.
By the way,I believe that boat used to go in excess of 60 mph.

[Gavia immer]

Now, to merge the two thought tracks, if a 500 HP limit (truly, not enough to push a good sized cruiser onto a good plane) were to be imposed, people who love having cruisers as lake homes are just going to either buy new ones with legal sized engines or repower with smaller, legal sized engines. Which is only going to result in more boats that can only plow through the water pushing a large wake, not get up on plane quickly and skim nicely over it leaving a reasonable wake.
What's a reasonable cruiser wake for Lake Winnipesaukee? :confused:

[Islander]

I find it odd that the original intent of the this thread was to discuss ways of reducing wake damage and somehow it's evolved into a discussion about how laws should be passed that limit HP and encourage underpowered boats that make HUGE wakes. Be careful what you wish for...

Sorry, but no reasonable person is going to buy this lower horsepower means bigger wake thing. As I remember speed limits mean bigger wake to. Does global warming cause larger wake?

Yes, I'm sure there is a possible situation where replacing a boats engine with a smaller one will keep it from getting on plane. But that same boat would create the same large wake with a larger engine at partial power.

And do you really think anybody is going to take the big engines out of a GFBL and put in tiny ones? That I would like to see.

However if you insist this is possible then we can have a horsepower, number of cylinder AND displacement maximum.

Now dream up a way to get around that!

[Island Lover]

Why is that methods that work at hundreds or thousands of other lakes are immediate considered impossible and unworkable on Winnipesaukee?

Thousands of lakes have speed limits with little on no enforcement problems. Many NH lakes have them without problems.

Lake Tappan in Ohio has a 299 horsepower limit that works very well. I'm sure we will now hear all the differences between Lake Tappan and Lake Winnipesaukee.

[Gatto Nero]

......However if you insist this is possible then we can have a horsepower, number of cylinder AND displacement maximum.

Now dream up a way to get around that!

Vote Republican :rolleye2:

[codeman671]

Many NH lakes have them without problems.



Any idea on how many bodies in NH are actually over 1000 acres compared to how many are under? Most bodies of water in NH are too small to even hold a 25' boat regardless of horsepower. I can't seem to remember the last time I saw a 25' boat in Pine River Pond, probably because it is too small and shallow!!!

I am sure you already know this but Winnipesaukee is 6+ times the size of the next largest NH lake. I think that there is plenty of space for everyone to get along...Stop creating wake!

By the way, are you and Islander actually the same person or do you live under the same roof? You joined the same month and seem to have the same ideas...Wouldn't surprise me a bit if you were one and the same...

[Dave R]

Sorry, but no reasonable person is going to buy this lower horsepower means bigger wake thing. As I remember speed limits mean bigger wake to. Does global warming cause larger wake?

Yes, I'm sure there is a possible situation where replacing a boats engine with a smaller one will keep it from getting on plane. But that same boat would create the same large wake with a larger engine at partial power.

And do you really think anybody is going to take the big engines out of a GFBL and put in tiny ones? That I would like to see.

However if you insist this is possible then we can have a horsepower, number of cylinder AND displacement maximum.

Now dream up a way to get around that!

Have you ever noticed that when on plane, the faster you go, the smaller the wake becomes? I did not mean to imply that folks would put ridiculously small engines in boats, such that they could only plow along, I suggest only that lower cruising speeds necessitated by lower HP would make bigger wakes. When my boat is barely on plane, it kicks up an enormous wake. Another 10 MPH and the wake is pretty reasonable. If I had a less powerful engine, I'd be compelled to drop my cruising speed to keep the engine in a reasonable RPM range for longevity.

GFBL boats do not, typically, kick up a big wake and would be foolish to target if wakes were the issue. At 50 MPH they make tiny ripples.

How do you plan to measure displacement? You think the MP is going to tear down each engine and measure the bore and stroke? What displacement limit would you suggest? Or did you mean the boat's displacement? In that case what would you suggest?

[Islander]

Sorry, hull displacement not engine displacement. Or just the weight of the boat.

[jrc]

I've resisted this topic, basically because I stuck my foot in my mouth last year regarding wakes. But lets compare the new wake crusade against the old speed limit crusade.

The speed limit law seeks to prevent a activity that we've all been told is dangerous all our lives, "Speed Kills". It's supported by sincere sounding people expressing fear for their safety. Fear of being run over by a speeding boat is easy for a non-boater to understand. It mostly effects a very esoteric boating community and only indirectly pushes them off the lake. There is an innocent victim. It has support from a substantial portion of the lake industry, some boat dealers and restaurant chains. That's why a speed limit always had a fighting chance of passing.

A boat size limit would be very different. We have no life history or point of reference on what is bad about a big boat. Any safety issue is very tenuous and hard for non-boaters to grasp. It directly bans a very popular boating community. There are no obvious victims. I will not have the support of the lake industry. Every boat dealer statewide will see this a direct assault on their business. A Winnipesaukee size limit would naturally have to apply to all smaller lakes, so this affects everyone. No restaurant chain will dare offend such a huge, rich customer base. The vast majority of boaters will reject it, because we all dream of getting a bigger boat someday.

I don't think a big boat ban will go anywhere.

[Dave R]

Why is that methods that work at hundreds or thousands of other lakes are immediate considered impossible and unworkable on Winnipesaukee?

Thousands of lakes have speed limits with little on no enforcement problems. Many NH lakes have them without problems.

Lake Tappan in Ohio has a 299 horsepower limit that works very well. I'm sure we will now hear all the differences between Lake Tappan and Lake Winnipesaukee.


So, I got bored and looked up Tappan Lake in Ohio on the interweb. It has a surface area of 2,350 acres. Winnipesaukee has 45,000+ acres. Slight difference. :rolleye1: HP limits on Ohio lakes are an exception, rather than the rule, BTW. Lakes substantailly smaller than Tappan Lake have no HP limit.

But to be fair, lets follow the Tappan Lake model and see where it goes for a bigger lake:;)

To adjust for the slight difference in lake surface area, we should take the Tappan Lake HP limit and adjust it linearly for the difference in acreage to fit Winnipesaukee. That comes to roughly 5700 HP, I suspect most could live with that. Alternatively, to try to be more like the rest of Ohio, we could look at HP limits on larger lakes in Ohio and adjust down from there. Lake Erie is pretty big and borders Ohio. It is 138 times bigger than Winnipesaukee and has no HP limit. Lets see, null divided by 138 = null. Hey, look at that, we are already compliant! :D

Seriously, if you like the idea of lakes with HP, displacement, and speed limits, why on earth would you have a place on Winnipesaukee? From what I hear, there's thousands of lakes with speed limits and no enforcement problems; why don't you live on one of them instead? There's one really close by and a whole state full of them just south of us...

[SweetCraft]

Unfortunately the reality of the situation will be that NH Government will need to limit the # of the boats on the lake in order to protect/maintain the quality of its valuable economic resource called Winni. The way they will do this? Either a lottery for a set # of permits as many midwestern lakes do now or limiting size/hp/displacement. You wouldn't have a 100 folks in your pool if it only held 30 would you? Sorry folks hate to rain on the parade and everyone's "freedom" but in order to protect the lake for the many and future generations (they have rights to it also) limits will need to be put in place. Its sad but we just won't do the right thing and protect it on our own.

Its coming. I will take all bets.... place your bets....... 5 years MAX.....

[Dave R]

Unfortunately the reality of the situation will be that NH Government will need to limit the # of the boats on the lake in order to protect/maintain the quality of its valuable economic resource called Winni. The way they will do this? Either a lottery for a set # of permits as many midwestern lakes do now or limiting size/hp/displacement. You wouldn't have a 100 folks in your pool if it only held 30 would you? Sorry folks hate to rain on the parade and everyone's "freedom" but in order to protect the lake for the many and future generations (they have rights to it also) limits will need to be put in place. Its sad but we just won't do the right thing and protect it on our own.

Its coming. I will take all bets.... place your bets....... 5 years MAX.....

Based on what I've seen, the "crowds" on the lake are diminishing. I think there's fewer boats operating on the lake, on a typical day, than there were 5 years ago. There's always room to park at the ramp where I launch, and the only crowds I see on a regular basis are around Weirs Beach. Sounds like solution in search of a problem to me. Wanna see crowds, spend a weekend on the CT River sometime. It's vastly more crowded than Winni and nearly everybody still has a good time and remains friendly.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

I agree with Dave R. Over the last few years I've definitely noticed fewer boats. Couple that with higher gas prices and I'll bet it takes care of itself. There are a lot more slips available for sale / rent than there have been in the past. If the lake gets too crowded for some, they will stop coming and the lake will be less crowded. Problem solved without a new law.

[Gavia immer]

I agree with Dave R. Over the last few years I've definitely noticed fewer boats. Couple that with higher gas prices and I'll bet it takes care of itself. There are a lot more slips available for sale / rent than there have been in the past. If the lake gets too crowded for some, they will stop coming and the lake will be less crowded. Problem solved without a new law.
Boats keep getting faster and bigger, who displace away the smaller displacement boats. The remaining smaller boats "buy up" to bigger displacement boats, who displace the remaining small boats, which.....

[B R]

Unfortunately the reality of the situation will be that NH Government will need to limit the # of the boats on the lake in order to protect/maintain the quality of its valuable economic resource called Winni. The way they will do this? Either a lottery for a set # of permits as many midwestern lakes do now or limiting size/hp/displacement. You wouldn't have a 100 folks in your pool if it only held 30 would you? Sorry folks hate to rain on the parade and everyone's "freedom" but in order to protect the lake for the many and future generations (they have rights to it also) limits will need to be put in place. Its sad but we just won't do the right thing and protect it on our own.

Its coming. I will take all bets.... place your bets....... 5 years MAX.....

Besides all the reasons jrc mentions above, there are many tax revenue reasons why the state does NOT want the crowds to go away any time soon (and I too believe the crowds are not nearly what they were 5 years ago).

There was an article in the Citizen this week mentioning the out of state boat registration bill didn't pass or won't be voted on. This bill was attempting to charge out of state registered boats a fee for using lakes in the state. One of the reasons used to defeat the bill was the perceived negative affect the bill would have had on tourism.

Now we're not talking a ton of money OR a ton of people being affected. But the legislature is concerned enough about making laws that will have a negative effect on tourism and more importantly, tourism dollars.

NH's largest source of revenue is tourism. NH's largest tourism attraction is the lakes region. If they were hesitant to charge the few people who would have been affected by the registration bill, how do you think they are going to put large limits on the amount of boats that use the lake?

NH has built a revenue model around collecting as many taxes as possible from non-residents. I don't believe that's the case in those "western states". For that matter, I wouldn't be surprised if NH holds the record for collecting as much money from non-voting taxpayers as any state in the country, per capita.

So I'll take bets AND I'll give 2:1 odds that NH has either a sales tax or an income tax before any boat limitations via number of boats allowed on the lake is implemented.

[Pineedles]

B R is right. Although I don't place a lot of confidence in gov't to do the right thing, I can't imagine the NH Lakes Region being some sort of Shangrilla to the exclusion of all other places where you could launch your boat and thereby fulfill your boating needs. But, who knows? If global warming is the way of things to come, then Aroostook Valley, Maine will be the next Virginia Beach. A place on Winnipesaukee could be $100,000 per foot of shore frontage? I wish I had some money to invest in more shore frontage.:laugh:

[Silver Duck]

Islander

What I originally posted, and Dave seconded, is quite true and ia a very important concept for operators who are trying to minimize their wake. So, let me try to explain again, more clearly (though the physics class I learned it in was a long time ago :(. My appologies to any physicists for over-simplification and leaving out the math - it gives me a headache. :laugh: )

A boat in motion has two possible modes of operation; i.e., displacement and planing.

At slow speeds, a boat is operating in displacement mode (so named because it's sitting down in the water and displaces [pushes aside] the water through which it moves.

In displacement mode, a boat makes two waves, one at the bow and one at the stern. (More about this later.)

In displacement mode, the faster the boat goes, the more water it displaces, and the bigger the wake it leaves.

That remains true until the boat reaches what's called "hull speed", which is the fastest any given hull can go and still operate in displacement mode.

Now, any boat's "hull speed" is governed by the distance between the bow wave and the stern wave; the greater the distance between the waves, the faster the boat can go and still be in displacement mode. (That's why the Mount's wake got smaller after she was lenghened.)

For a displacement type hull (think large-ish sailboat), hull speed is all you can ever reach because of the hull shape. Pour in extra power, the hull just squats lower, more water is displaced, and its wake just gets bigger. I've seen a movie of an experiment demonstrating this. A big sport-fisherman was towing a good sized sail boat using a special harness; it was pretty amazing!

With a planing hull (most power boats), that's not the case because planing hulls have flat surfaces at the stern.

A boat with a planing hull, after it reaches hull speed, actually climbs up over its own bow wave and skims over the water on those flat surface I mentioned. Since less of the hull is in the water at this point, less water is being displaced and the wake size is reduced. :D

There's typically a pretty wide range between "hull speed" and "planing speed" (the lowest speed it can go and still skim over the water on those flat surfaces). For instance, on my boat hull speed is about 7.5 mph, and "planing speed" is pretty close to 20 mph. Even then the boat's not riding as high as it can, and is making a bigger wake that it would at higher speeds.

Now, here's the rub. :( As a planing hull is going from "hull speed" to "planing speed", it's squatting low in the water and pushing the biggest wake that it possible can (and burning gas in painful quantities.)

So, the upshot is that the longer the boat takes to accelerate to "planing speed" the longer it pushes the biggest wake it possibly can. :eek: And, believe me, an under powered boat can take a long time to accelerate to "planing speed", or maybe never get up to where it's making the least possbile wake.

All of which is why I stated that horsepower limits can be counter productive to minimizing wake.

Sorry for the long post, but boat operators need to realize that the faster they can get up on a good plane, the better it is for everyone concerned.

Silver Duck

[ApS]

"...Seriously, if you like the idea of lakes with HP, displacement, and speed limits, why on earth would you have a place on Winnipesaukee? From what I hear, there's thousands of lakes with speed limits and no enforcement problems; why don't you live on one of them instead? There's one really close by and a whole state full of them just south of us...."
An invitation to leave? :eek:

The problem didn't originate with those of us who reside on Lake Winnipesaukee. The problem was brought to us, courtesy of a burgeoning economy, increased land values, "Keeping up with the Joneses", and a wake "throw-weight" that is spiraling ever-upwards, discouraging the family boater. (Nationwide, BTW).

To the question that I answered earlier, "The few" are chasing away the family boater, thereby "growing" the percentage of irresponsible boaters.

"...A boat in motion stays in motion, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, displacement hulls, blah, blah, blah, blah, horsepower limits, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, flat surfaces, blah, blah, blah, blah, down in the water, blah, blah, blah, skim over the water, blah, blah, blah, and the cube root of the hypotenuse...":rolleye2:

Cruisers are poorly designed to race from their overnighting berths to a party-anchorage site on recreational, protected, inland, and largely residential lakes. They also multi-task to tow tubers, videotape their family's Jet-Ski wake jumpers, and to tow waterskiers—fully inappropriate design applications for those same lakes.

Whatever happened to cruisers that "cruised"? :confused:

[Seaplane Pilot]

Islander

Sorry for the long post, but boat operators need to realize that the faster they can get up on a good plane, the better it is for everyone concerned.

Silver Duck

Silver Duck - you hit the nail on the head. Get up on plane and stay there. The usual suspects tried to twist this thread into a speed limit thread, but no way - it's all about the waves.

Sounds like a good commercial: "Hey Cap't Bonehead - Wake Down...It's all about the Waves". I like it :cheers:

[SweetCraft]

two crucial elements are missing from your arquement.... one reason the usage is dropping on the lake is 1) it is too rough now for the average boat/smaller boat. These far out number the larger boats . They spend more since they out number larger boats 5 to 1 or more 2) Winni is not seen as "clean" or pristine anymore. Too many boats and pollution. A negative perception of the lake will continue to erode our tourism/customer base. How do we overcome these negative issues? Limit the number of boats/size of boats. This will make the lake calmer and cleaner since shore erosion will be reduced. Notice how cloudy the water gets on weekends these days from all the HUGE wakes??? Further recent proposed DES legislation regarding the shoreline is already underway to address the water quality issue. This is step one to improve the tourists perception . The second step will be limiting boats or size thus reducing waves and erosion. Calmer/cleaner lake is the result. I am speaking from first hand knowledge. The plan is being worked/discussed RIGHT NOW and these solutions are being seriously considered. Unfortunately losing the quality of our lake whether real or perceived will cost us FAR more tourists/money than any laws/limits on boats. Limiting boats will make people want to come here again. That is why it will happen. So we are both right. Tourist dollars will drive this issue. We just don't agree on how this will be addressed. 2-1? I will give even higher odds...... Lets make the bet!

[Dave R]

two crucial elements are missing from your arquement.... one reason the usage is dropping on the lake is 1) it is too rough now for the average boat/smaller boat. These far out number the larger boats . They spend more since they out number larger boats 5 to 1 or more 2) Winni is not seen as "clean" or pristine anymore. Too many boats and pollution. A negative perception of the lake will continue to erode our tourism/customer base. How do we overcome these negative issues? Limit the number of boats/size of boats. This will make the lake calmer and cleaner since shore erosion will be reduced. Notice how cloudy the water gets on weekends these days from all the HUGE wakes??? Further recent proposed DES legislation regarding the shoreline is already underway to address the water quality issue. This is step one to improve the tourists perception . The second step will be limiting boats or size thus reducing waves and erosion. Calmer/cleaner lake is the result. I am speaking from first hand knowledge. The plan is being worked/discussed RIGHT NOW and these solutions are being seriously considered. Unfortunately losing the quality of our lake whether real or perceived will cost us FAR more tourists/money than any laws/limits on boats. Limiting boats will make people want to come here again. That is why it will happen. So we are both right. Tourist dollars will drive this issue. We just don't agree on how this will be addressed. 2-1? I will give even higher odds...... Lets make the bet!

So the plan is to limit the number of boats and this will draw people to the lake? What will they do when they get to the lake, stand on the shore and wish they could boat? Sounds like a really fun vacation. :rolleye1: "Mommy, can we go to Disney next year instead?"

This sounds like a thinly veiled, green party plan to "fix" the lake, disguised as a plan to help the local economy, to me. I don't doubt that people are working on/discussing these ideas right now, I just doubt that it would help the economy if it ever happens and and seriously doubt the economy is driving the plan.

What does the DES plan for the shoreline to improve the water quality? Just curious. I am all for letting the immediate shoreline go back to it's natural state as it's been proven time and again that this really works to help water quality and makes waves/wakes rather moot. I know this will wreck some really nice lawns and private beaches, but said lawns and beaches are just terrible for the water. Perhaps the DES should lighten up on its convluted process to get permission to alter the shoreline to prevent erosion as well.


Is this being discussed by the same folks who claim the area will lose $51 million in tourist revenue due to crowding (among other things), by chance?

[SweetCraft]

I am talking economics and since it's upsetting to you it becomes "green party", liberal , tree huggers, democrats..... why does it always go there on this site? If the lake gets cloudy, crappy and full of milfoil then you won't have to worry about any tourists doing anything up here. These policies will protect the lake and make folks want to come here. They will be able to purchase a permit and use the lake. A calmer, cleaner lake at that. Protecting the lake and perserving it.... I can't really think of a more conservative and pro economy thing to do? Check out Teddy Roosevelt's biography and all the things he did regarding conservation in our country via the National Parks. He got it and he is one of the greatest REPUBLICAN Presidents we have ever had. Stop making this a liberal issue when its not. Protecting the lake is not only good business its also our duty as responsible Americans to safe guard our resources for future generations. Get used to us "Greenies".... there will LOTS of us in the coming years and many of us will be conservative Repulicans.

[Dave R]

I am talking economics and since it's upsetting to you it becomes "green party", liberal , tree huggers, democrats..... why does it always go there on this site? If the lake gets cloudy, crappy and full of milfoil then you won't have to worry about any tourists doing anything up here. These policies will protect the lake and make folks want to come here. They will be able to purchase a permit and use the lake. A calmer, cleaner lake at that. Protecting the lake and perserving it.... I can't really think of a more conservative and pro economy thing to do? Check out Teddy Roosevelt's biography and all the things he did regarding conservation in our country via the National Parks. He got it and he is one of the greatest REPUBLICAN Presidents we have ever had. Stop making this a liberal issue when its not. Protecting the lake is not only good business its also our duty as responsible Americans to safe guard our resources for future generations. Get used to us "Greenies".... there will LOTS of us in the coming years and many of us will be conservative Repulicans.

I didn't mean "Green Party" as an insult, don't be so sensitive. I am a liberal myself, except when it comes to dumb laws, excessive taxation and excessive spending, in those regards I'm very conservative.

I LIKE the idea of preserving the lake. I don't like ulterior motives and BS statistics. Those traits are not limited to any political party.

The green party, in general will never be successful at convincing folks to buy into its ideas because it's too extreme and has a history of deceit; the economic study you mentioned is a perfect example. It'll always be a fringe group with some good ideas but no hope of real success.

[Dave R]

Boats keep getting faster and bigger, who displace away the smaller displacement boats. The remaining smaller boats "buy up" to bigger displacement boats, who displace the remaining small boats, which.....

I do agree that small boats are becoming less prevalent, but as a former "smaller" boat owner, I can assure you it has very little to do with other boats and far more to do with typical, afternoon, wind-driven chop, one sees on such a large lake, and the comfort a larger boat provides in said chop. In my present boat, I can comfortably stay on plane in chop that would compel me to plow along at semi-displacement speed in my last boat. The fact that my boat also handles big wakes better does not hurt but they are far less of a concern than the pounding we used to take in the smaller boat from naturally occuring waves.

The same was true in the 70s when my parents up-sized from a 16.5 foot Grady White to a 27 foot Grady White. Had nothing to do with wakes and everything to do with more boating days during our short NH boating season.

[Knot Droolin']

I say we just regulate ourselves into a coma, and the faster the better! I for one find all these choices of size, speed, hull shape etc. too difficult and feel the government should make these choices for me.

Furthermore, if the government can relieve me and everyone else of any responisibility for anything then we can regulate the lawyers out of existence while we are at it!

Remember to vote BIG government and let the government do the thinking for you!

After we are done regulating the lake, we should tackle the issue of regulating our roadways:

Ban tractor trailors -> too big, loud and dangerous
Ban bicycles from all roads -> too many people get hurt this way
Ban SUV's from our roads -> too big and waste too much gas
Ban small hybrids -> too small to be safe (unless it has a Green Peace bumber sticker, then it is OK)
Ban motorcycles -> they are too loud and unsafe
Ban anyone under 20 from driving -> they are unsafe drivers
ban anyone over 65 from driving -> same reason as above


Once we are done with roads we can start to legislate what type of house everyone can live in!

I guess I better say it before I am attacked: this is parody, but it is the sad direction we seem headed in....

[B R]

two crucial elements are missing from your arquement.... one reason the usage is dropping on the lake is 1) it is too rough now for the average boat/smaller boat. These far out number the larger boats . They spend more since they out number larger boats 5 to 1 or more 2) Winni is not seen as "clean" or pristine anymore. Too many boats and pollution. A negative perception of the lake will continue to erode our tourism/customer base. How do we overcome these negative issues? Limit the number of boats/size of boats. This will make the lake calmer and cleaner since shore erosion will be reduced. Notice how cloudy the water gets on weekends these days from all the HUGE wakes??? Further recent proposed DES legislation regarding the shoreline is already underway to address the water quality issue. This is step one to improve the tourists perception . The second step will be limiting boats or size thus reducing waves and erosion. Calmer/cleaner lake is the result. I am speaking from first hand knowledge. The plan is being worked/discussed RIGHT NOW and these solutions are being seriously considered. Unfortunately losing the quality of our lake whether real or perceived will cost us FAR more tourists/money than any laws/limits on boats. Limiting boats will make people want to come here again. That is why it will happen. So we are both right. Tourist dollars will drive this issue. We just don't agree on how this will be addressed. 2-1? I will give even higher odds...... Lets make the bet!


I am not following your logic. You say that by regulating the amount of boats that can use the lake it will bring in more tourists? And what will those tourists be doing?

People come to the lake to use the lake, overwhelmingly with a boat. If you don't let them boat on the lake you think more people will come?? Sorry, that's not going to happen.

[Gavia immer]

I do agree that small boats are becoming less prevalent, but as a former "smaller" boat owner, I can assure you it has very little to do with other boats and far more to do with typical, afternoon, wind-driven chop, one sees on such a large lake, and the comfort a larger boat provides in said chop.
Small boats are the Winnipesaukee norm after Ice Out. Since the frigid rain, fog and wind are often msierable in April/May, you'd expect to see large boats. But they're not out there. Everybody out there is in those aluminum 12, 14, 16, and 18 foot boats. In late June, those mostly disappear and are replaced by "fair weather" boats double their size and larger.

As to comfort, watch the stats for "falls in boat". Exclude the wake jumpers because wake jumping is illegal on Lake Winnipesaukee. But planing boats that have struck a rogue wake? (To coin a term). If occupants are airborne for two seconds after hitting a wake....then are dropped back onto the boat, you can expect serious injury. Broken backs are a more commonly reported injury on this lake. Who knows how many other "falls in boat" injuries go unreported.

There's nothing wrong with proceeding at "semi-displacement speed" while quartering wakes and waves. That is how I manage heavy weather boating for my lower back condition.

An effort to control wake size and intensity is needed for other reasons than pulling dirt from islands and other Winnipesaukee shorelines. Bucketloads of fresh dirt won't make that problem go away. For many, still-bigger boats won't help an afternoon's enjoyment on the lake either.

[tis]

Knot- So true! So scary!

[Dave R]

Small boats are the Winnipesaukee norm after Ice Out. Since the frigid rain, fog and wind are often msierable in April/May, you'd expect to see large boats. But they're not out there. Everybody out there is in those aluminum 12, 14, 16, and 18 foot boats. In late June, those mostly disappear and are replaced by "fair weather" boats double their size and larger.

As to comfort, watch the stats for "falls in boat". Exclude the wake jumpers because wake jumping is illegal on Lake Winnipesaukee. But planing boats that have struck a rogue wake? (To coin a term). If occupants are airborne for two seconds after hitting a wake....then are dropped back onto the boat, you can expect serious injury. Broken backs are a more commonly reported injury on this lake. Who knows how many other "falls in boat" injuries go unreported.

There's nothing wrong with proceeding at "semi-displacement speed" while quartering wakes and waves. That is how I manage heavy weather boating for my lower back condition.

An effort to control wake size and intensity is needed for other reasons than pulling dirt from islands and other Winnipesaukee shorelines. Bucketloads of fresh dirt won't make that problem go away. For many, still-bigger boats won't help an afternoon's enjoyment on the lake either.

I understand what you mean, think giant cruisers on the lake are pretty silly, and I don't like huge wakes either, but the responsibility for safe operation of a boat falls squarely with the skipper. Hypothetically speaking: If someone breaks their back aboard my boat, because I have gone over a wake too fast, it's entirely my fault, I was operating too fast for conditions.

I seriously doubt a responsible skipper would take a 12 or 14 foot boat out accross the broads in a 20 MPH northwest breeze, regardless of boat traffic or the time of year. That would be a day to stay home or in a sheltered cove. I don't have to becuase my boat is big enough to deal with it. It's not a 40+ foot boat, it's reasonably sized at 25 feet, and perfectly adequate for my needs without having a huge impact on the lakeshore while still being trailerable. There are plenty of boats out there bigger than mine (there were plenty bigger than 25 feet in the early 70s, when I first started boating here too, so it's not like bigger boats a new thing).

I don't like cruising at semi-displacement speeds and find them exhausting. I'm glad you don't mind doing so and are pleased with your choice in a boat.

Worst case, thus far: I put the tabs down on my boat, set my speed to 20 MPH and cruise in comfort, on-plane. Normally, I can maintain 30 MPH regardless of the chop. It's not like I'm flying, either way.

[Bear Islander]

... I seriously doubt a responsible skipper would take a 12 or 14 foot boat out accross the broads in a 20 MPH northwest breeze, regardless of boat traffic or the time of year. That would be a day to stay home or in a sheltered cove...

It's done all the time. A 14 foot aluminum with 10 or 15 HP motor is an island standard. A 20 MPH wind would keep me from crossing the broads, but I will take mine anywhere else.

The key issue is water quality. In the open areas the quality has remained high. Quality in the bays has been dropping.

If or when the quality drops enough to alarm the public, limits of some kind will be imposed.

[Dave R]

If or when the quality drops enough to alarm the public, limits of some kind will be imposed.

You are probably hoping the solution would be to impose limits on boats. Since we are both dreaming, I would like to see a more logical solution that REALLY addresses the issues...

My thoughts:

DES relaxes process to get permission to alter shoreline SOLELY for the sake of improving areas that are subject to wake/wave erosion. There is no need for this process to be difficult for the land owner. A huge program would be started to educate waterfront land owners and low interest loans or grants could be established for those that need help implementing these shore altering projects.

DES enhances laws about altering the shoreline for the sake of views, beaches, docks etc., with the intent to leave healthy, natural shoreline alone and to encourage the re-establishment of shoreline in areas already altered. Fines levied on abusers would be based on the value of the property, the damage done, and would need to be painfully punitive, not a slap on the wrist.

After a specific time limit, DES first gives warnings and then levies fines on waterfront property owners that do not control erosion that occurs with the lake level at "full lake" or below. Obviously, flooding would be outside the realm of reason.

This plan would make the shore vastly more resilient to wakes, and THAT would also make it more resilient to floods and natural waves as well, without harming the economy. Limiting boat size would only prevent damage from boats. My plan covers all damage.

[Bear Islander]

In what way can the shoreline be altered to protect against wave/wake erosion? Winnipesaukee has 282 miles of shoreline, almost all of it natural. How can you alter the shore without making more of a problem during construction? How many billions will this cost? How many decades to complete?

And we should do all this so that a few hundred large boats, that belong on the ocean anyway, can operate on a delicate pristine lake?

Obviously we disagree. Is they anywhere we can agree? Is there any size or speed that you think is to much for this lake?

[Dave R]

Obviously we disagree. Is they anywhere we can agree? Is there any size or speed that you think is to much for this lake?

Yep, anything bigger than what I have (25 feet) and anything faster than what I have (around 50 MPH) is too big and too fast, IMO, otherwise I'd have a bigger and faster boat. I'm just against legislation that tells me or anyone else what's too big or too fast.

I have no desire to cross giant wakes or listen to loud boats (though I have to admit I enjoy watching a really fast boat go by, quietly). I'm not at all frightened by other boats at speed. I would not be frightened even if fast boats were over-represented in boat collision statistics. I'm a real daredevil that way.

It would not be necessary to alter the entire lake shoreline, only problem areas, most of which are likely not natural anyway. You really think all those little beaches in front of all those houses are natural? I don't. I know the one in front of the place I rent isn't natural. It's also sloped perfectly to really funnel runoff into the lake. The natural shore on either side of it deals perfectly with waves/wakes, even huge ones from big cruisers going by at plowing speed; the same wakes that bounce my boat all over the place at the dock. I wish they would not do that, but we can't legislate common sense. I do prepare for it though. Fenders and well-placed docklines do wonders.

[Gavia immer]

In what way can the shoreline be altered to protect against wake/wake erosion?
Drop "Full Pond" by 12 inches.

[ApS]

"...We have no life history or point of reference on what is bad about a big boat.
Just yesterday, a lone "express cruiser" left my area at about 25-MPH, creating a wake that shook my permanent dock (with me on it), and soaked the shoreline. :(

A cruiser towing a skier once knocked my small boat on its transom: opening the throttle only slowed my backwards plunge to a full swamping. Since then, I see what's bad about big boats every summer weekend, if not every summer day.

With gas prices slowing down the big boats, it's only going to get worse; moreover, their appetite for gas will keep demand for marina gasoline—and marina gas prices—high. What does that do for middle-America's family boater? :confused:

"...Any safety issue is very tenuous and hard for non-boaters to grasp...There are no obvious victims..."
That's The Problem: cruisers leave an unsafe—and anonymous—calling card behind in their wake! :eek:

"...It directly bans a very popular boating community..."
But not as popular as "Middle America's" family boating community....

This advertisement caught my eye:
1) It has a dog featured (always catchy), and a catchy caption.
2) It's sponsored by NAMMI—a boat-manufacturer's association.
3) NAMMI bemoans that Americans are leaving boating in droves, and offers a "Discover Boating" Compact Disk, free of charge.

(Discover boating? :confused: )

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i117/chipmunkwhisperer/LosingtheFamilyBoater.jpg
Caption: "Dogs Need Weekends, too". :laugh:

"...It will not have the support of the lake industry..."
At one time, having tobacco smoke in restaurants was all the rage. (Pardon the expression. :emb: )

Fay's would probably like to see the wake-makers phased out. (Pardon the expression. :emb: )

"...A Winnipesaukee size limit would naturally have to apply to all smaller lakes, so this affects everyone..."
The serious wake-makers aren't going to small lakes: they're going to move to the ocean, where they are the more appropriate vessel.

"...No restaurant chain will dare offend such a huge, rich customer base..."
It would be terrible to offend the rich by doing the right thing. :rolleye2:

"...The vast majority of boaters will reject it, because we all dream of getting a bigger boat someday.
You're dreaming if you think that gasoline prices (much less gasoline availability) won't determine the size of future boat wakes. There will be more wake issues as the gas-guzzlers slow down.

"...I don't think a big boat ban will go anywhere.
Lakewater quality, the raised consciousness of the Winnipesaukee boater, serious injuries, shoreline erosion, other wake damages, and subsequent wake headlines on this residential lake will determine that.

[masssteve]

We've been vacationing here for over 25 years. I remember seeing thousands of boats sized around 17-20 feet every time we went out, it seemed to be the norm. Seeing a 30 plus foot cruiser or a speed boat always caught your eye because it was only a few times a day. So when I bought our 21 footer I thought it would fit out needs, and for the most part it does! I have nothing against larger boats. I just can't afford anything larger then our 21 foot bowrider. 2 Saturdays ago there we were coming our of the Weirs channel, with around 50 boats in site, I was the smallest one! Headway speed I thought was 6 miles per hour. There are always a few clueless skippers in 30 plus boats going 15-20 mph within 50 feet all sides of me. Again, I have nothing against larger boats, I would just like to be able to make it from the Weirs channel to eagle island without getting swamped and fearing for my family's well being. When I'm boating, I always keep aware of smaller boats and either slow down or keep my distance, same with sailboats and shoreline for that matter. I would just like the same courtesy.

See you on the water

[pirkaus]

Common sense isn't very common.
Boater safety could be taken one step farther, and require a driving test just like a car. The bigger the boat or higher the horsepower the harder the test. Simmular to a commercial driving test you are lisenced for a length and horse power. You can go smaller but not larger.
It's not the boat, it's the operator that is the main problem.

[jeffk]

I don't think its just a matter of size/horsepower. For example, the first time I took my PWC out for a literal spin, I realized its maneuverability and acceleration would require me to master a new set of boating skills if I wasn't going to be a danger to myself or others. Different classes of water craft, even unpowered ones, have handling behaviors, safety issues, and other information to learn so that you can be a good and safe boater.

I think it would be a good step to require some practical demonstration of skills before allowing water access but I also believe that with the likely impact on visiting boaters such a requirement would be almost impossible to impose. Too bad.

[pirkaus]

I never said it would be practical or easy. The only way it could work is if all states were to do it.
Even if this happened it would not elliminate stupid.

[Dave R]

Drop "Full Pond" by 12 inches.

That's brilliant. Wish I thought of it. Only caveat would be that folks with marginally shallow docks would be even worse off.

[Gatto Nero]

That's brilliant. Wish I thought of it. Only caveat would be that folks with marginally shallow docks would be even worse off.

Naw, They'd just have more frontage. Of course their taxes would need to be raised accordingly.

[Dave R]

Again, I have nothing against larger boats, I would just like to be able to make it from the Weirs channel to eagle island without getting swamped and fearing for my family's well being. When I'm boating, I always keep aware of smaller boats and either slow down or keep my distance, same with sailboats and shoreline for that matter. I would just like the same courtesy.

See you on the water

I avoid that area on weekends. Yuck. Ever thought about staying on the wrong side of FL1 and going under the Governor's Island bridge rather than to FL2? I don't think there's anything in the water to stop a 21 foot boat from passing FL1 on the south side. Alternatively, you could go up the west shore of Meredith Bay to Maiden Lady Cove and then make a beeline for FL44, either way, you'd be skipping the whole mess between the channel and FL2, you'd probably use less gas, and you'd become part of the solution (not to imply that you are part of the problem, but one less boat wake is still one less boat wake in an area loaded with them). Just some alternatives. Sad to say, I doubt you'll get any courtesy in that area of the lake.

I have no idea what Weirs Beach was like yesterday, but the rest of the lake was shockingly dead for a gorgeous June Sunday Saw a few bone head moves, but nothing outstanding until we were headed home with the boat on the trailer. Motorcycle week seems to bring out the worst motorcyclist behavior and the loudest bikes.

[codeman671]

I have no idea what Weirs Beach was like yesterday, but the rest of the lake was shockingly dead for a gorgeous June Sunday.

The Weirs channel was not bad at all, I thought it was much less congested than the average summer weekend. The rest of the lake seemed unusually quiet. Not that I am complaining...

[MAINLANDER]

Everyone must have stayed off the water for fear of speeding boats and huge wakes.:laugh:

[Mee-n-Mac]

I'll echo codeman. Boat traffic was pretty light* and the line for slips @ the Weirs was maybe 3 or so boats deep on Sun afternoon. Less that normal for a July or August weekend for sure. Road traffic was higher than a normal weekend. Even in Alton I'd wait to get across Rt11 .... best to go by boat or not go I say ! ;)


*except for the sailboats becalmed right by the Witches channel.

[Islander]

... It's not the boat, it's the operator that is the main problem.

There is truth in what you say. But I think the main problem is the number, size and speed of boats. The lake is to small for the any size and speed mentality we have.

Look at the old pictures of Shep Browns and other marinas. Forty years ago the standard "speed boat" or "ski boat" as they were called, was an aluminum outboard with a steering wheel, and small windshield. They where light and cheap, around 16 to 20 feet long.

Twenty years ago they were mostly fiberglass, a lot of I/O, 18 to 21 foot bow riders. Now many are big, heavy, expensive and high power.

And while you are correct that the operators are a big problem, there really is no way to fix the operators. Education is great for most people, but the problem operator doesn't listen and doesn't care.

The only effective way to stop him is to ban the type of boat he likes from the lake. And since the type of boat he likes are the ones that pollute, intimidate, erode etc. that makes it a win win solution.

[Gavia immer]

As a planing hull is going from "hull speed" to "planing speed", it's squatting low in the water and pushing the biggest wake that it possible can (and burning gas in painful quantities.)
The answer is to put 5000 horsepower in a cruiser and go as fast as possible to burn less gas? :confused:

There's never going to be a wake from a cruiser that is manageable by the typical lake boat.....as well as the fastest boats seen on the lake.

[GWC...]

There is truth in what you say. But I think the main problem is the number, size and speed of boats. The lake is to small for the any size and speed mentality we have.

Now many are big, heavy, expensive and high power.

The only effective way to stop him is to ban the type of boat he likes from the lake. And since the type of boat he likes are the ones that pollute, intimidate, erode etc. that makes it a win win solution.

Are you sure...

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopost/data/502/medium/IMG_9485_copy.jpg

[Silver Duck]

Gavia Immer

Nobody mentioned 5000 hp (before you, that is!) :rolleye1: But, yes, being up on a solid plane does burn far less gas than plowing along between displacement and planing speeds, because it makes less wake.

Whether it fits your agenda or not, it's a fact, and something that any skipper interested in minimizing their wake (and their fuel bill) should be aware of.

As for your second statement, that's pure hyperbole, again designed to fit your agenda. Even the worst of the wakes that Captain Bonehead sees fit to gift us with are quite easily manageable by today's typical lake boat (which is, by my observation, on the order of 18 - 24 ft) if the operator is knowledgeable enough to approach the wake at an angle.

What is it, exactly, that you consider to be a typical lake boat? Also, what does "the fastest boats seen on the lake " have to do with the subject?

Silver Duck

[Silver Duck]

Islander

I must have missed something. Any type of boat that interferes with you enjoying the lake in your preferred manner should be banned? :confused:

It certainly seems to me that your suggestion would most certainly interfering with those folks enjoying the lake in their preferred way! :rolleye1:

Could you explain, convincingly, why your interests are more important than theirs? :rolleye2: Did I miss someone being crowned as Emperor of Winnipesaukee?

In answering, please keep in mind that what you're suggesting is analogous to the cruiser owners suggesting that your island home be disassembled and moved to Cape Cod because they think that it ruins the pristine beauty of the shoreline! (Yes, cruisers are legitimate second homes; even the IRS recognizes that status.)

Silver Duck

[ossipeeboater]

Islander

I must have missed something. Any type of boat that interferes with you enjoying the lake in your preferred manner should be banned? :confused:

It certainly seems to me that your suggestion would most certainly interfering with those folks enjoying the lake in their preferred way! :rolleye1:

Could you explain, convincingly, why your interests are more important than theirs? :rolleye2: Did I miss someone being crowned as Emperor of Winnipesaukee?

In answering, please keep in mind that what you're suggesting is analogous to the cruiser owners suggesting that your island home be disassembled and moved to Cape Cod because they think that it ruins the pristine beauty of the shoreline! (Yes, cruisers are legitimate second homes; even the IRS recognizes that status.)

Silver Duck


did you know the islanders have more of a right than any of the rest of us?

[Islander]

ossipeeboater - Everyone on both sides of the argument has stated that islanders do not have any more rights than anyone else. So I guess you just want to cause trouble.

Silver Duck - Gee... I don't remember posting anything like you suggest.

Let me be clear. I think this lake is pure but fragile and increasingly more polluted. I think the lake is to small for the bigger, high horsepower boats that are becoming more prevalent. I believe limits of some kind are inevitable.

I hope that grandfathering or a slow phase in of limits is possible so that existing lake boaters don't get screwed.

I like my 270 HP boat, but will trade it in for something smaller if the consensus is that this HP is to much. I'll bet even money that in 20 years the maximum HP is 100 or less.

I think one of the first things enacted should be a ban on 2 cycle engines. Now THERE is an idea that will be unpopular, especially on the islands.

[Dave R]

Let me be clear. I think this lake is pure but fragile and increasingly more polluted. I think the lake is to small for the bigger, high horsepower boats that are becoming more prevalent. I believe limits of some kind are inevitable.



Why do you think it's increasingly more polluted? I swear I can recall my parents telling me some towns were dumping raw sewage into the lake as late as the 1970s. Septic design laws have become dramatically more strict in the last few decades. There's far fewer smoky, old-school, two-stroke engines on the lake and stiff fines for fuel spills. New laws will force all new motor boats to have catalytic converters in less than a decade. The lake seems less crowded than it has in years and new noise laws are helping keep the noise down. There's no longer any coal burning steamships on the lake. There's no longer a logging industry using the lake for transport, or lakeside industry of any sort that I can think of. I hardly ever see any floating trash.

The only growing pollution problem I am aware of is at public beaches and is caused solely by people doing pretty disgusting things, for reasons that are beyond me, in the water. It's not just Winnipesaukkee beaches, you should see what washes up on shore after a holiday weekend at Pawtuckaway State Park beach, nasty! I'd be willing to bet the people responsible for this kind of pollution typically don't have boats or homes on the lake.

[Islander]

There are several people that have been on the island more than 80 years. They tell a different story about the history of the lake and if it is better or worse now. But their observations, like yours, are anecdotal. The real evidence comes from scientific studies done repeatedly over many years at the same locations. The data does not go back as far as we would wish, but the State and UNH both have monitoring programs for the lake.

There is lots of data available. This link is to an easy to read summary.

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~jjencks/Final%20GIS%20Report%20Jencks.htm

The water quality is good, the trend in the bays is bad.


"Concluding from this data, the overall lake water quality over the years is pristine, but there are local regions that do show signs of impairment. The worst region would be Center Harbor. There is an obvious high to low trend in that area and the region with the most upsets to the pristine criteria. Most of the regions have at least ten years of data. It is important to continue to monitor the lakes water quality, so short and long term effects are noticed and can be addressed. To draw a better conclusion on the impairments, all parameter data should be analyzed and compared as some parameters are affected by others. "

[Dave R]

"Concluding from this data, the overall lake water quality over the years is pristine, but there are local regions that do show signs of impairment. The worst region would be Center Harbor. There is an obvious high to low trend in that area and the region with the most upsets to the pristine criteria. Most of the regions have at least ten years of data. It is important to continue to monitor the lakes water quality, so short and long term effects are noticed and can be addressed. To draw a better conclusion on the impairments, all parameter data should be analyzed and compared as some parameters are affected by others. "

I saw that study too. The problem I have with the Center Harbor conclusion is that the lates data analyzed is 8 years old and wildly variable. Center Harbor may very well be on an upward trend by now (or a cesspool). It's truly impossible to predict 2007 results from wildly fluctuating data taken from 1986 to 1999. The other data in that study is more recent and I find it odd that the author based her single negative conclusion on the one data point where she had the least and most out of date data.

[Islander]

If you have seen this data why are you pretending it doesn't exist? How can you read this data and pretend the lake is not becoming more polluted?

You loose all credibility when you start questioning the data collected by UNH. The State and UNH say the quality is dropping but "Dave R" thinks otherwise because of some things he remembers his parents telling him. Give me a break!

The is plenty of more recent data available. Check out the Center Harbor stats for 2003.

The FACT is the lake is becoming less pristine. That is true even if it doesn't fit your agenda.

[Coastal Laker]

I think you may have missed the point. We are talking about CHANGING the legal requirement. Lots of lakes limit boat size with horsepower limits. I would have preferred that over speed limits as it kills two birds with one stone.

And the only people that NEED to use boats are us islanders.

How big is to big? That's easy, any boat bigger than mine is to big.


WOW.... I'm a bit behind in forum activities and am just now getting caught up again. Now I remember why I haven't been on the forum for a while!

This whole thing about needing boats is interesting. I absolutey NEED my boat for my own mental wellness. :D

I suppose you need to travel via boat to get to an island but you don't need to own a boat to do that. I've been asked more than once to bring people to their island homes because they don't have anything more than a canoe. Those same folks stay on their island all summer except for occasional visits to the "mainland" to stock up on supplies again. That's the sort of thing that the Winni taxi was great for. I have indeed met some people who like island living but not boat ownership!

[Island Lover]

I didn't say I needed to own a boat. It says in the quote you picked "NEED to use". If I take the water taxi I am using a boat. If you give me a ride I am using YOUR boat.

In this context a canoe is a boat.

How do I get to or from the island without a boat?

[Dave R]

If you have seen this data why are you pretending it doesn't exist? How can you read this data and pretend the lake is not becoming more polluted?

You loose all credibility when you start questioning the data collected by UNH. The State and UNH say the quality is dropping but "Dave R" thinks otherwise because of some things he remembers his parents telling him. Give me a break!

The is plenty of more recent data available. Check out the Center Harbor stats for 2003.

The FACT is the lake is becoming less pristine. That is true even if it doesn't fit your agenda.

I never pretended not to read it and I never pretended the lake is more or less polluted. Frankly, I have no idea if it's more or less polluted than it was a century, or even a decade ago. If you have some other data, please share. I don't (I really don't, I am not pretending that I don't). I never offered my anecdotal evidence as proof. Show me your "FACT"s. Your agenda is glaringly obvious. I don't have an agenda, I just like a debate.

Where is the 2003 data for Center Harbor? I could not find anything newer than 1999 in the study you linked.

You should note that the link you posted was not a study done by UNH or the State of NH; it is a project done by a UNH student using data provided by volunteers. We have no clue what her grade was, we have no clue how accurate her data was and we have no clue what her agenda was (I think it was to graduate though). We can however, draw some conclusions of our own based on the data she presented.

I found two glaring faults regarding her conclusion about Center Harbor, the data is 8 to 21 years old old, and there are only 2 monitoring locations in Center Harbor. It's obvious by the results from the rest of the lake that 2 monitoring points do not provide enough data. Note how there's 9 locations around Governer's Island (arguably the area with the highest level of boat traffic...) and how the data varies substantially less year to year, and is always "pristine". Same results for Long Island, 9 monitor points, very little variation, always "pristine". Alton has 7 monitor points, very little varaition, always "pristine" (except for a chlorophyll "spike" in 2004). Moultonboro has 10 sites, very little varaition, always "pristine".

[ApS]

Why do you think it's increasingly more polluted? I swear I can recall my parents telling me some towns were dumping raw sewage into the lake as late as the 1970s.
Having been at Lake Winnipesaukee for many years, I can say I have no recollection of a raw sewage problem from towns, even as rumors. My own Tuftonboro grandparents never mentioned anything like that.

Even if your second-hand recollection was correct, the lake stayed as a "Class A -- drinkable" until about 1976—decades before I considered junk mail offers that would arrive stating, "Test your water—free!" (And decades before there was anything resembling "boating traffic").

The first "floating-home cruiser" appeared to me wrapped up with vinyl and canvas against the May 1992, cold. Those appearances may likely roughly coincide with the rapid erosion of my property's shoreline, widening of marina slips, additions of pumpout stations, expansions of dock-overnighting conveniences, and perhaps new IRS rules that encouraged the cruiser-as-home loophole.

[Islander]

Dave R

Why don't you do an internet search and read the data for yourself. You apparently don't believe the evidence that I provide.

I'm sorry that the study showing the lake becoming more polluted has only two test sites in Center Harbor. Are there any studies showing the lake is not becoming more polluted? Or a study that evaluates a greater number of test sites? You don't like the evidence so it must be wrong. Do you work for a cigarette company?

You seem to take comfort in the lake having a designation as "pristine". However pristine describes a RANGE of water quality. The problem is that the lake is falling from the higher part of that range to a lower part. If the problems continue one day we will be out of the pristine range all the time, not just here and there now and then.

[Dave R]

Dave R

Why don't you do an internet search and read the data for yourself. You apparently don't believe the evidence that I provide.



I did. I found just a little more data than you did. I completely believe the data you provided; it's good, solid, data. Your conclusions are simply wrong, AND you made the mistake of stating them as "FACT".

There are a couple of fairly recent studies that show parts the lake are pristine but that they have occasional short-term pollution problems. Here's an excerpt:

"7) Based on the current and historical water quality data, Meredith Bay would be considered an unproductive "pristine" portion of Lake Winnipesaukee that is characterized by clear water and low levels of microscopic plant growth. However, short term water clarity reductions and short-term algal blooms have been documented in Meredith Bay and suggest periodic pollutant inputs (par-ticularly the nutrient phosphorus). "

Another study shows Moultonboro bay to be less than pristine and clearly calls for action on the part of waterfront property owners here:

"Based on the current and historical water quality data, Moultonborough Bay would be a moderately nutrient enriched “transitional” segment of Lake Winnipesaukee while the open waters of Winter Harbor and Wolfeboro Bay are currently characterized as relatively unproductive “pristine” segments of the lake. A first step towards preserving the high water quality in Lake Win-nipesaukee is to take action at the local level and do your part to minimize the number of pollutants (particularly sediment and the nutrient phosphorus) that enter the lake. Whenever possible, maintain riparian buffers (vegetative buffers adjacent to the water body). These buffers will biologically “take up” nutrients before they enter the lake and will also provide physical filters which allow materials to settle out before reaching the lake. Reduce fertilizer applications. Most residents apply far more fertilizers than necessary which can be a costly expense to the homeowner and can also be detrimental to the lake since the same nutrients that make our lawns green will also stimulate plant growth in our lakes."

The same study shows how wetlands (natural I suppose) contribute to water quality problems, and implies waterfront property owners may be a problem as well here:

" The 2002 seasonal average Moultonborough Bay water clarity is low, relative to the other locations around the lake, while the amount of microscopic plant growth in Moultonborough Bay is one of the higher levels documented in Lake Winnipesaukee (Figures 51 and 52). Extensive wetland drainage into Moultonborough Bay, and the accompanying “tea” stained water, is partially responsible for the shallower water transparency readings. Likewise, the wetlands can, at times, contribute nutrients that stimulate the mi-croscopic plant “algal” growth. In addition, patches of “heavy” development, compounded with a lack of flushing, might also contribute, and concentrate, nutrients that stimulate algal growth and, in-turn, result in water quality problems."

I ahve nothing to do with these studies. Both indicate how the lake was during 2002 and show no trends so they conclude nothing about the delta of pollution levels in the lake over time, which is what I am interested in.

You seem to think I take personal pride in the lake or something. I have no ties with the lake at all. I just plop my boat in it and enjoy it when I can. It's merely one of several boating destinations for me. I do my part to follow the boating and environmental laws while I'm there, and I fully admit that I really like spending my time on the lake, but if the lake gets nasty, I'll just go somewhere else.

I still do not know if the lakre is getting better or worse. If it is changing (for better or worse), I tend to believe the waterfront property owners have almost everything to do with it.

You blame big or fast boats for a problem that you have yet to show proof even exists. Oddly, none of the studies I can find even mentioned boat wakes or speed...

[MAINLANDER]

I did. I found just a little more data than you did. I completely believe the data you provided; it's good, solid, data. Your conclusions are simply wrong, AND you made the mistake of stating them as "FACT"....Great post. The #1 cause of water quality issues is waterfront landowners. Weather it's lawn fertilizer, sediment runoff, or leaking septic systems. Therefore we should ban houses and camps on the lake???

[Islander]

I still do not know if the lakre is getting better or worse. If it is changing (for better or worse), I tend to believe the waterfront property owners have almost everything to do with it.


Spoken like a true boat lover that does not own waterfront property!

The lake is not getting less pristine.... cigarettes don't cause cancer.... big boats don't cause big wakes... O.J. was the victim... I get the picture.

[Skip]

Spoken like a true boat lover that does not own waterfront property!

The lake is not getting less pristine.... cigarettes don't cause cancer.... big boats don't cause big wakes... O.J. was the victim... I get the picture.

How about following the advice of one of my folk heros, the always on point Joe Friday, and give us:

"Just the facts Mam, just the facts...." ;)

[Dave R]

Spoken like a true boat lover that does not own waterfront property!




Wow, I hate to sound petty. but there's no way to deny those are the words of a true snob! You sure that's what you really meant?

It's true though, I only own "water access" vacation property on a lovely lake in Maine. Owning it gives me access to water even if the likes of you succeed in denying it to "regular" boat loving folks. If that ever happens, I'll let the plebes use my access just to irritate the snobs...

[SIKSUKR]

Spoken like a true boat lover that does not own waterfront property!

The lake is not getting less pristine.... cigarettes don't cause cancer.... big boats don't cause big wakes... O.J. was the victim... I get the picture.
How does one discuss and debate issues with someone posting comments like these?I don't necessary agree or disagree with Dave or Islanders view on lake quality but I do put more weight towards someone who posts clear thoughts without throwing in comments that have nothing to do with the discussion.

[SweetCraft]

Don't waste your time/energy.... these are same "gang" of posters that beat up every other poster who doesn't agree with their views. Once you express a concern for the lake, its future and protecting it you are immediately a snob, elitest, liberal , Democrat, land baron, tree hugger, green party member, communist..... this happens every year whether its speed limits or the environment. Join the rest of us that want to do actual WORK to protect the lake and keep it pristine for future generations. Why? Because its THE RIGHT THING TO DO. I wish we had room for all the boats and all the world to use it. God knows I LOVE a party . But we don't .... a limited resource will eventually need to limit access unfortunately to be protected. BIG Boats (Wakes) and yes probably lawns, fertizilers, clear cutting into the hill side, new houses, septics etc will be legislated further and part of the solution as they do the most damage. It sucks sometimes but that its reality in an ever crowed world. Stop "attacking" and start coming up with solutions?????

[Dave R]

Don't waste your time/energy.... these are same "gang" of posters that beat up every other poster who doesn't agree with their views. Once you express a concern for the lake, its future and protecting it you are immediately a snob, elitest, liberal , Democrat, land baron, tree hugger, green party member, communist..... this happens every year whether its speed limits or the environment. Join the rest of us that want to do actual WORK to protect the lake and keep it pristine for future generations. Why? Because its THE RIGHT THING TO DO. I wish we had room for all the boats and all the world to use it. God knows I LOVE a party . But we don't .... a limited resource will eventually need to limit access unfortunately to be protected. BIG Boats (Wakes) and yes probably lawns, fertizilers, clear cutting into the hill side, new houses, septics etc will be legislated further and part of the solution as they do the most damage. It sucks sometimes but that its reality in an ever crowed world. Stop "attacking" and start coming up with solutions?????

Just so you know, the lake association I proudly belong to has gone to great lengths, at great individual cost, to preserve the natural riparian buffers along the 1000 feet of shoreline we originally bought. Additionally we purchased (at even greater cost) an additional 1000 feet of neighboring shoreline that's also preserved in it's natural state and will remain so. We've also facilitated the process of putting 5000+ acres of woodland in trust so that it can never be developed. So, we've collectively saved 2000 feet of pristine shoreline and 5000+ acres of woods from future development. I practice what I preach; what have you done?

There's plenty of room on the lake. How often and where do you cruise on Winnipesaukee?

[ITD]

I think those who think there are too many boats on the lake should keep their boat out of the water. Stay home. That would be the non-hypocritical thing to do.

[GWC...]

Don't waste your time/energy.... these are same "gang" of posters that beat up every other poster who doesn't agree with their views. Once you express a concern for the lake, its future and protecting it you are immediately a snob, elitest, liberal , Democrat, land baron, tree hugger, green party member, communist..... this happens every year whether its speed limits or the environment. Join the rest of us that want to do actual WORK to protect the lake and keep it pristine for future generations. Why? Because its THE RIGHT THING TO DO. I wish we had room for all the boats and all the world to use it. God knows I LOVE a party . But we don't .... a limited resource will eventually need to limit access unfortunately to be protected. BIG Boats (Wakes) and yes probably lawns, fertizilers, clear cutting into the hill side, new houses, septics etc will be legislated further and part of the solution as they do the most damage. It sucks sometimes but that its reality in an ever crowed world. Stop "attacking" and start coming up with solutions?????
If history repeats itself...

Governor's Island in background, 1929...
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopost/data/15014/medium/weirs.jpg

Here's an idea, the membership of Island Marina Assoc. donates the proerty to a conservation group, after eliminating all evidence of a marina, as unihabited land.

How's that for reality taking a bite? :D :laugh: :laugh:

[MAINLANDER]

Seams to me that boat traffic has been down for all of last year and up to now this year there has not been much traffic at all. Nothing at all like five or so years ago. IMHO.

[Gavia immer]

Just so you know, the lake association I proudly belong to has gone to great lengths, at great individual cost, to preserve the natural riparian buffers along the 1000 feet of shoreline we originally bought. Additionally we purchased (at even greater cost) an additional 1000 feet of neighboring shoreline that's also preserved in it's natural state and will remain so. We've also facilitated the process of putting 5000+ acres of woodland in trust so that it can never be developed. So, we've collectively saved 2000 feet of pristine shoreline and 5000+ acres of woods from future development. I practice what I preach; what have you done?

There's plenty of room on the lake.
If Winnipesaukee was a round lake of 72 Square miles, I would agree. But the irregular shoreline keeps boats at least 150' or more off shore. Think of Alton Bay, and include the same "barrier" around each of the 253 islands. Except for the Broads, sight distance is impaired in many places.

I don't recall if PWCs have the same limit. Even on some lakes bigger than Winnipesaukee, at 600 feet from shore it's headway speed only for PWCs.

Although associations result in a much higher concentration of people, your association should be applauded for its actions in protecting lakewater quality. I recall that New York City bought a billion dollars worth of forest in the upper Hudson River Basin to keep their drinking water pristine, and the city's water has a deserved worldwide reputation for quality. Towns in addition to Laconia will be drawing from the lake in the future.

What is the difference between "in trust", and "preserved in it's natural state and will remain so"? Is your association on Lake Winnipesaukee?

[ApS]

I think the erosion the DES is most concerned with is rain water carrying stuff from "long" distances. It's not the erosion, per se, they worry about, it's the non-lake stuff that's carried into the lake that bothers them.
IMHO, DES should worry about all those things, but here's what Science News wrote about runoff—excerpted:

"...On the green space that's left, even small amounts of traffic—tractors, golf carts, lawn movers, mere human footfalls—can compress the soil and reduce the rate at which it absorbs precipitation. As an environment becomes inhabited, therefore, less precipitation soaks into the ground, and runoff increases. As a result, floods occur more often and develop more rapidly.

The hydrological changes, along with the pollutants picked up by the water as it pours across the urban landscape can wreak havoc on aquatic ecosystems and damage habitats alongside waterways..."

[Dave R]

What is the difference between "in trust", and "preserved in it's natural state and will remain so"? Is your association on Lake Winnipesaukee?

In trust means that the control of the land is given to a board of trustees who are chartered with protecting the land but cannot sell it. I'm not sure why this is necessary, but I suspect it's for tax purposes. The end result is that it protects a large watershed area from ever being developed and that helps protect the lake we are on, and everything downstream (which includes Sebago Lake, Portland's drinking water).

We are not on Winnipesaukee, the property is in the lakes region of Maine. This is an area my wife and I fell in love with about 19 years ago, and spend a lot of time in. We plan to retire there eventually. It's a bit more laid back than the lakes region of NH and really close to some great skiing.

[Gavia immer]

Even the worst of the wakes that Captain Bonehead sees fit to gift us with are quite easily manageable by today's typical lake boat (which is, by my observation, on the order of 18 - 24 ft) if the operator is knowledgeable enough to approach the wake at an angle.

What is it, exactly, that you consider to be a typical lake boat? Also, what does "the fastest boats seen on the lake " have to do with the subject?


You suggested that a typical lake boat runs UP TO 24 feet and I agree. Most canoes and kayaks are typically 7 feet or more shorter, windsurfers even shorter, and there are often much smaller boats on weekends.

Damage to docked boats, erosion to shoreline, injury to the casual boater, beach swimmer, canoe, "falls within boat", or the swamping of any typical lake boat should not be the price paid for "comfort" with "a HOUSE" operating on Winnipesaukee at speeds above HEADWAY.

IMO

[ApS]

"...We are not on Winnipesaukee, the property is in the lakes region of Maine. This is an area my wife and I fell in love with about 19 years ago, and spend a lot of time in. We plan to retire there eventually. It's a bit more laid back than the lakes region of NH..."
Irony: Laid back could have described Lake Winnipesaukee 20 years ago.

He's since moved away from Long Lake's mayhem in Maine, but here's what that lakeside resident wrote at this forum:
"...The lakes have become the last great lawless frontier. In Maine...there are less wardens with IFW today then there were twenty years ago..." http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8852&postcount=92

Question: In 20 years, should Winnipesaukee's lakeside residents be championing the same causes for Maine's unlimited lake speeds, ocean-racers, heavy cruisers, law-non-enforcements, erosion, and exhaust noise for your chosen neighborhood? :eek:

BTW: Yesterday's boat average size was considerably larger than what has been described as "typical-boat sizes". I saw two bass boats (the smallest, at about 19-feet), and dozens of boats 21' to 36-feet long. When the rental season gets started, the average lengths will likely decrease. And in the spirit of what MAXUM stated, what used to be the normal-sized boat will get hammered.

[Islander]

Dave R

You object to the idea that we need limits. And you don't think the lake is becoming more hectic.

At the same time you are making plans to move to another lake, because it is "more laid back" than Winnipesaukee.

No problem, you move north and start polluting another pristine lake. We will stay here and try to clean up the mess you made.

[wildwoodfam]

one I hadn't thought of - until recently - BUT - since this is the Winnipesaukee Forum and the conversations here are supposedly about Winnipesaukee, I wonder - HOW MANY of us on here posting concerns, etc...actually a) own a home on Winni, b) boat on Winni, c) use Winni for our recreational gains every summer....and HOW MANY posters to this site do not? I am not saying one needs to live, boat or recreate on Winni to post!

I would be interested in learning how many people on this forum actually live and/ or play here on Winni?!

I am happy to start - I have lived and boated on Winni since my earliest recollections, the 1960's - first at the family's place on Paugus Bay, which had been in the family sine the 30's, then we all moved over to Center Harbor - mom and dad have since moved to a souther nh lake to be closer to their home - but my family summers on LI. I have been boating "solo" on Winni - since 1978 when I first took my uncles boat on a solo trek around Paugus and :eek: through the channel out to the main lake! We also own lakefrontage on another lake in NH and our extended family has property and frontage on Champlain in VT and the seacoast in MA. I have a 20 foot runabout, a canoe, and 14' row boat. All registered in NH and all on Winni.

My recollection of boating on the lake in the 60's and 70's was that when were were out on the lake and spotted a cruiser - my dad or uncle knew exactly WHO the skipper was - seemingly because there were not that many of them out there at the time - but some of them in the 60's and 70's were just as big and grand as the ones on here today!

[Dave R]

Dave R

You object to the idea that we need limits. And you don't think the lake is becoming more hectic.

At the same time you are making plans to move to another lake, because it is "more laid back" than Winnipesaukee.

No problem, you move north and start polluting another pristine lake. We will stay here and try to clean up the mess you made.

I do not object to necessary limits. Thus far, limits have proven to be utterly unnecessary, except for shorefront development.

The lake is far less hectic this year than I have ever seen it for this time of year, I've been coming here for more than 30 years. Two gorgeous Sundays in a row and the lake was practically deserted. Last year was quiet, this year is even quieter, so far.

Never said I was moving there BECAUSE it was more laid back; just that it IS more laid back (fairly safe assumption you made there though...), and it's where I happen to have property. It's not just the boating that's more laid back either, it's the general feel of the whole area, especially the traffic on the roads. People are friendlier and there's no bike week to endure.

I boat on Winnipesaukee a lot because it's near where I live, I know it well, have lots of friends there and it's a wonderful place to be. I choose when and where I boat and am not limited to one place just because I have property there.

I don't contribute to the pollution anywhere near as much as a typical shorefront property owner. I operate my boat in a fully legal manner. My boat is in a perfect state of tune, does not leak any oil, has a functional head that gets used, has its gray water overboard drains disconnected, and I rarely buy gas on the lake (no gas spills). I also clean and wax the boat on the trailer, not in the water.

When you are at your lakefront home, do you have a direct view of the water, or is your view obscured by brush and growth? Do you have a beach? Do you have a dock or a boat house? Do you have a path that leads to the water? Do you have a septic system? Any of these things can impact runoff into the lake and will have a much greater impact than a boat running along the surface or at anchor; or sitting on a trailer 50 miles away, 325 days of the year, .

[Gavia immer]

That's brilliant. Wish I thought of it. Only caveat would be that folks with marginally shallow docks would be even worse off.
Whitecapped, rolling wakes from cruisers can make a dock "too shallow".

Putting too large a boat at a dock can also make any dock "too shallow".

[ITD]

I don't contribute to the pollution anywhere near as much as a typical shorefront property owner.
.

Come on Dave, I'd take you on on that statement but in the end it's not worth the effort. You're being lead down a road, trying to reason with someone who just wants what they want, you won't win with these people, it's not worth arguing with them, these island people who want every other boat off the lake but theirs. Just make sure your Senators and Reps know what they are up to with their speed limit, much more effective than trying to reason with them.

[Knot Droolin']

Come on Dave, I'd take you on on that statement but in the end it's not worth the effort. You're being lead down a road, trying to reason with someone who just wants what they want, you won't win with these people, it's not worth arguing with them, these island people who want every other boat off the lake but theirs. Just make sure your Senators and Reps know what they are up to with their speed limit, much more effective than trying to reason with them.

It was my understanding from reading this thread that folks who live on the lake have a much greater say and respect for the lake than do the rest of us who only use the lake to our evil ends.

Also, doesn't at least some of this thread smack of "His house is bigger than mine so I don't like his house" ?

[Silver Duck]

Gavia Immer

You don't like fast boats. You don't ike big boats. I'd be curious to know what kind of boat you own, and presumable do like! :confused:

Ok, let me address your last response to me point by point.

As for endangering kayaks, I seriously doubt that a cruiser wake would be more than a nuisance to a real kayak (not some inflatable thing or bathtub toy). Kayaks are extremely nimble, capable, seaworthy vessels. Heck, experienced kayakers even use them to traverse whitewater rapids! (I honestly wish that my back didn't prevent my using one to explore parts of the lake that my cruiser can't go.)

I'll take "injury to the casual boater" and "falls within boat" together. First, the rules say that you are supposed to be seated (in a manufactuirer-intended seating location) while underway. Given that, hitting a large wake at speeds that would send a passenger flying and cause injury is, IMHO, reckless operation. (Captain Bonehead sometimes takes the holm on small boats, too!) :eek:

As for damage to docked boats, well, cruiser wakes are not the only source of large waves on our lake; Mother Nature sometimes produces some dandy waves with no help from the boating community. :eek:

Anybody who cares about their boat should be taking advantage of the many fine products (e.g., fenders, dock bumpers, mooring whips, decent dock lines with snubbers) designed to prevent wave damage at the dock. (I utilize all of the above, plus back into my slip so the boat's bow faces outward.) :D

The above statement about Mother Nature also pertains to shoreline erosion. When Mother Nature gets her dander up, she flings waves with no letup whatever, sometimes for days on end. That purely has to be harder on a shoreline than wake action. If your shoreline is vulnerable to erosion, you're polluting the lake. :( Please stop it by fixing your shoreline, ASAP!

As for injury to a swimmer, I've never heard of a single documented case of this on our lake; have you? By the way, my 89 year old father prefers ocean swimming because he enjoys the waves! ;)

Likewise swampings; cases I've heard of were because of natural lake conditions (such as the recent one off Bear Island).

Canoes, I'll give you; they scare the heck out of me and I won't come anywhere near one (let alone within 150 feet) except at a dead slow crawl. :eek: I personally don't think that they belong out of the most sheltered coves on the calmest of days. Seems like they manage to get swamped with monotonous regularity even without assistance from boat wakes.

By the way, I personally enjoy "pootling along" at, if not headway speed, well below hull speed. It's relaxing and much easier on the fuel bills!

Silver Duck

[Dave R]

You're being lead down a road, trying to reason with someone who just wants what they want, you won't win with these people, it's not worth arguing with them, these island people who want every other boat off the lake but theirs.

I'm just havin' fun. I know I'll never be successful changing some minds and that's OK.

[Islander]

I don't contribute to the pollution anywhere near as much as a typical shorefront property owner.

Earlier in this thread the comment was made that islanders have more right to a boat than others. You people jumped all over that one word for a long time.

I don't have a RIGHT to boat. I DO have a RIGHT to my home. My rights to property and to be safe and secure in my home are basic in the Constitution.

Your large boat can (and will) be forced to move to another body of water. My land and home can not be moved.

Your arguments are becoming silly.

The boat I use to get to the island pollutes a little I guess (like most boats), my home does not. Failed septic systems are rare and shut down quickly when found. My septic is state of the art and a long way from the water. I'm not sure how you think my dock pollutes, it doesn't have treated lumber.

[Knot Droolin']

Earlier in this thread the comment was made that islanders have more right to a boat than others. You people jumped all over that one word for a long time.

I don't have a RIGHT to boat. I DO have a RIGHT to my home. My rights to property and to be safe and secure in my home are basic in the Constitution.



Rights to land ownership are NOT constitutional as eminent domain is a state by state issue. The Supreme Court recently affirmed this in a case about New London, CT. The state and its people could very well deem your land better servers as a park or as a location for a factory and move you out as long as state law permits it.

Boating, like driving, is also considered a privilege.

[ApS]

"...I honestly wish that my back didn't prevent my using one to explore parts of the lake that my cruiser can't go..."
Where your cruiser can't go is where kayaking is more pleasant.

My problem is much less with kayaking than with my sailboats getting hammered to a stop by excessive wakes and that small sailboats are disappearing from the lake. Hobie cats, with their two hulls, get banged to a halt even more readily.

I think I'll invite you to sit at my dock some weekend to watch the cruisers go by and watch the shoreline turn to mud with each "pass". To truly experience the cruisers' wakes, (and for your chair's location on the dock), I have just the spot! :eek:

"...The lake is far less hectic this year than I have ever seen it for this time of year, I've been coming here for more than 30 years. Two gorgeous Sundays in a row and the lake was practically deserted. Last year was quiet, this year is even quieter, so far..."
Having a "ringside seat" on Winnipesaukee, I agree that some boats must be leaving the area. The size of the average boat appears to be getting much bigger as the years pass.

My "running average" (of about 24-feet) just got a huge bump from a few appearing here these last couple of days. That includes a three-engine Sonic, the largest Cigarette GFBL I've ever seen on the lake, and two "Express Cruisers" of about 35-40 feet. Technically, being an outboard, the Sonic can't be a GFBL, but those three outboards sure get noisy.

"...People are friendlier and there's no bike week to endure..."
Can you account for the "less-friendly" atmosphere here at Winnipesaukee? Did it begin about the time five years ago when I posted the headline here that read, "Winnipesaukee means 'Noise and Action'"?

Bike Week does seem to have attracted a permanent "different sense" to this area.

Now I'm curious what sized boat you have in Maine (and don't apparently use), and what sized boat will you have there when you retire?

"...I don't contribute to the pollution anywhere near as much as a typical shorefront property owner.
You and 120,000 other NH-registered boaters are saying the exact same thing about pollution and erosion! :laugh:

"...When you are at your lakefront home, do you have a direct view of the water, or is your view obscured by brush and growth? Do you have a beach? Do you have a dock or a boat house? Do you have a path that leads to the water? Do you have a septic system? Any of these things can impact runoff into the lake and will have a much greater impact than a boat running along the surface or at anchor; or sitting on a trailer 50 miles away, 325 days of the year..."
I have a naturally obscured view, an old dock, no path—no beach. My view from the dock is unobstructed for about 185°, and can see about 2 miles north, east and west—even out to The Broads.

"Dry" boat storage and pavement produces sudden runoff even more readily than non-McMansion lakeside residences and boat houses. Even then, I've got many years of experience watching my shoreline disappear. Tree roots uphill are being exposed even as "replacement duff" sprinkles down from the trees and "replacement mud" arrives from uphill.

I have a septic system, but hopefully, so does every boat out there. I expect that all visitors are using the facilities ashore.

Shore facilities—and pumpouts from those big boats—go somewhere.

[Finder]

Islander, I agree with you on all your major points. However you're wasting your time arguing with these people. They just don't see what you see and their minds are pretty much closed. I have a three foot undercut in my shoreline and trees fall into the lake frequently. In the last twentyfive years what was a sandy bottom is now covered with silt. The emerging water weeds are trapping more silt. The cause is persistent wakes, in an area that is protected against prevailing weather. Where I am, it's caused by circling wake boarders, skiers, and tubers, coupled with a full or above full lake. Those who disagree with you surely won't give you the last word, so this will be my only post on the subject.

[Dave R]

Your arguments are becoming silly.



You just noticed that? This whole discussion is amusing.




Big wakes are dumb, use excessive gas and cause erosion. I think we all agree on this.

I don't own a cabin cruiser or a GFBL, nor do I wish to.

You can try all you want to change laws and ban big or fast boats but even if you prove to be effective (not likely, based on your awful debating skills) you'll only affect those that own big and fast boats. Not me. :D I will happily continue to boat, as I have for years, and you'll probably continue to wish things were like the "good old days" and resist change without ever being satisfied. Ever try religion?

[Islander]

Rights to land ownership are NOT constitutional as eminent domain is a state by state issue. The Supreme Court recently affirmed this in a case about New London, CT. The state and its people could very well deem your land better servers as a park or as a location for a factory and move you out as long as state law permits it.

Boating, like driving, is also considered a privilege.

Perhaps you are not aware that the New Hampshire Constitution does not allow what happened in Connecticut. But just to be sure the legislature passed a law about a year ago to prevent that kind of taking.

Yes, boating is a privilege. We have all agreed to that over and over and over and over.

[tis]

Islander. Knot is right. Even though you are right, the state did pass a law last year- that only prevents the taking of land by eminent domain for private use. The state could still take your land if they decided that it would be a nice place for a park. And the kicker is, they would probably not offer you anywhere near what it is worth.

[Islander]

Knot is Knot right! And neither are you. The owner must be paid fair value.

Even though the Supreme Court ruled in favor of taking the Connecticut homes it never happened. The owners tied them up in lawsuits over the value of the land.

However the issue was boaters vs homeowners on the lake. Some boats can and will be forced off the lake. The state buying up Bear Island to make a park is a pipe dream.

Are you really trying to say that boating on public property is the same as living in your own home?

[Knot Droolin']

Knot is Knot right! And neither are you. The owner must be paid fair value.

Even though the Supreme Court ruled in favor of taking the Connecticut homes it never happened. The owners tied them up in lawsuits over the value of the land.


Islander,

You are wrong again, the New London project continues:

http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=6666355

[Woodsy]

Islander...

I think your a bit off.... IF (and thats a BIG IF) the eco-friendly types got thier way, taking an island by emminent domain and setting it aside for conservation is a very plausible possibility, however unlikely it may seem to you. They could apply for some monster federal grant that requires little or no matching state funds. You are right that they have to offer a fair value... Fair value in this case will most likely be determined by your tax assessment. Its hard to argue that your property is worth more than the tax assessment and win...

Go check out Lake George... there are lots of state owned islands that you can rent and camp on!

I seriously doubt the state of NH will ever ban large boats from Lake Winnipesaukee. There are way too many marinas and boat owners and property owners that will fight that tooth and nail. Before you see large boats banned, or horsepower limits you will see distance restrictions based on weight... similar to the 300' distance from shore requirement for skicraft. A good example would be if your boat weighs more than 10000lbs, you cannot be above headway speed within 300' (or possibly more) of shore. This will help disspate some of the wave energy before it reaches the shoreline...

Woodsy

[Islander]

Islander...

I think your a bit off.... IF (and thats a BIG IF) the eco-friendly types got thier way, taking an island by emminent domain and setting it aside for conservation is a very plausible possibility, however unlikely it may seem to you. They could apply for some monster federal grant that requires little or no matching state funds. You are right that they have to offer a fair value... Fair value in this case will most likely be determined by your tax assessment. Its hard to argue that your property is worth more than the tax assessment and win...

Go check out Lake George... there are lots of state owned islands that you can rent and camp on!

I seriously doubt the state of NH will ever ban large boats from Lake Winnipesaukee. There are way too many marinas and boat owners and property owners that will fight that tooth and nail. Before you see large boats banned, or horsepower limits you will see distance restrictions based on weight... similar to the 300' distance from shore requirement for skicraft. A good example would be if your boat weighs more than 10000lbs, you cannot be above headway speed within 300' (or possibly more) of shore. This will help disspate some of the wave energy before it reaches the shoreline...

Woodsy

Woodsy - How can you be so wrong?

You said there would never be speed limits. Yet here we are with speed limits on Winnipesaukee this summer.

Its easy to argue assessed values when they are under fair market value, as they usually are.

Based on average property values and the number of homes, buying up Bear Island would cost at least 75 million. It would also involve closing two children's camps in operation for a century and closing two national historic sites. Ya, that's all going to happen. Is this what you dream of when you have those 1500 horsepower going 100 mph past my dock? Does it make you smile?

At least we now know what the anti speed limit crowd REALLY WANT. They want the islands turned into parks so they can stop off and have lunch. Tell the state that when they tear down our homes they should leave the docks and picnic tables to make it nice and comfy for you guys.

:laugh:

[Bear Islander]

Hi Woodsy-

There are also several islands on Winnipesaukee that are parks. Unfortunately, hardly anyone uses them.

[sa meredith]

Curious which Islands are also State Parks..if you have the time to respond.

[Bear Islander]

None of them are state parks. I was using "park" in the generic.

Stonedam, Ragged and Five Mile are in their natural state and accessible under certain conditions. I think the www.bizer.com site has information.

[sa meredith]

Excuse my ignorance...

[Silver Duck]

APS

I'd love to come sit on your dock some afternoon, just to meet you! As far as experiencing wakes, well, I doubt that either you home or dock bounce as much as my cruiser does when a big wake strikes!:D

I'm also intimately familiar with how a wake can stop a sailboat dead in the water; I grew up racing small sailboats, remember? I remember many a time when I lost a race because of a wake :(, and cussing my fool head off about it (under my breath -I was still young enough to have had my mouth washed out with soap if I'd said those things out loud.)

In all seriousness, I don't like big wakes, either, and I'm very, very conscious of how much I'm throwing, and where. IMHO, that's a responsibility that comes with operating a largish boat (I sure wish that the captain of the Sophie C would catch on to that).

It's just that, as always and on all subjects, I object to punishing everyone for offensive behavior on the part of some.

Silver Duck

[Skip]

...Woodsy - How can you be so wrong?...You said there would never be speed limits. Yet here we are with speed limits on Winnipesaukee this summer...

Well Woodsy, at least you are in good company. I remember not too long ago a poster insisting that radio controlled model boats in New Hampshire had to be registered! Hmmm, let me think......:laugh:

[tis]

Islander-you are wrong, twice. I absolutely do not want any islands turned into parks. Second, they are SUPPOSED to offer fair market value in eminent domain cases, but they don't. I can tell you this for a fact and I can tell you of others who will back me up. I think you have a right to your land and no one should be able to take it away from you. For anything, period. But I would also hope that you wouldn't wish someone to take my boat/s away.

[Woodsy]

Islander...

You sure do have your dander up today!!

We have two speed limit test zones... we do not have a lakewide speed limit. I am as interested as anyone to learn what data comes out of those test zones.

Arguing your assessed tax value in a prolonged eminent domain case would be detrimental to your wealth. I can see you trying to explain that to the town assesor... I am sure the tax assesor would be seeing $$$!

As far as Bear Island property being taken by eminent domain, I was merely pointing out that it could happen. I never said that I wanted it to happen. In fact if you reread my post, you'll note I referenced the Eco-Friendly crowd. The reality is getting 75 million or so from the Feds probably isn't all that hard if it gets the proper political backing. I wonder what NH DES and NH Lakes Assoc thinks??

Woodsy

PS: My boat does not have 1500HP nor does it go 100MPH. In my last run thru Bear Island, 3500 RPM netted 41MPH...

[jrc]

....In my last run thru Bear Island, 3500 RPM netted 41MPH...

Well the speed limit in there is 45 MPH and I always heard the minimum speed was 10 less than the maximum. So by that logic, you have to do at least 35 MPH in there.

[Woodsy]

JRC...

I borrowed a friends GPS.... The speedo in my boat doesn't work well, and I wanted to know what speed @ what RPM. I wouldn't want to break the law or upset our Bear Island folks...

Woodsy

[jrc]

That was meant to be a joke. I forgot the smile faces
:laugh: :emb: ;) :D :laugh: :eek:

[Mee-n-Mac]

JRC...

I borrowed a friends GPS.... The speedo in my boat doesn't work well, and I wanted to know what speed @ what RPM. I wouldn't want to break the law or upset our Bear Island folks...

Woodsy


Gee, kinda late for that don't you think. What with all the trees you musta knocked over going thru Bear Island, I'd have thunk they'd be pretty PO'ed no matter what the speed .... :devil: :D


In my last run thru Bear Island, 3500 RPM netted 41MPH...

ps - So how many cabins did ya score ? Should NH put a round-a-bout there ? ;)

[SIKSUKR]

M&M,you always have something funny to post.I thought a round-a-bout around Eagle Island would have been better than a NWZ.But then again,one way signs,and what if you hit the curb on the island?

[Dave R]

But then again,one way signs,and what if you hit the curb on the island?

If you have tubeless props, you could potentially unseat a bead.

[codeman671]

M&M,you always have something funny to post.I thought a round-a-bout around Eagle Island would have been better than a NWZ.But then again,one way signs,and what if you hit the curb on the island?

Being that Eagle is on the market for sale I am assuming that they are tired of having boats jump the curb and end up in their front lawn...:laugh:

[ITD]

Should NH put a round-a-bout there ? ;)


Not a good idea, a round-a-bout would cause a whirlpool, which would suck all the kayaks and canoes in the lake to that location. Island people wouldn't like that, all those paddle marks in their water.;)

[SIKSUKR]

Being that Eagle is on the market for sale I am assuming that they are tired of having boats jump the curb and end up in their front lawn...:laugh:
Good point Codeman.You could always put Jersey barriers around the island!

[fatlazyless]

If I remember correct, Timber Island, which is a huge island, 126 acres, was put up for sale a few years back for only 1.3 million dollars. Most of it to remain untouched, by easement, and it took a long time for the sale to go thru. It was a shame that the State of NH did not buy it. They could have bought it for a bargain basement, super-duper, lowest price - highest quality. dirt cheap price and then taken their time figuring out how to use it someday when the state has the money. Did they do it? No, of course not. What's to expect from the then majority of the 'live free or die' Republicans? 'Foresight.....outlook.... & thinking about tomorrow'....not present at that time.

We always hear that the lake belongs to the peoples of NH. So why not Timber Island, that very large and untouched primieval forest-island, too? Who knows, there could be a long time Neanderthal family happily living off the land, hidden away deep inside Timber Island? Anyone been hearing those drum beats late at night coming from Timber Island? They be going - boom da da - boom - da da -boom boom boom!

At 1.3 mil for 126 acres, that's $10k/acre and Timber Isl could be part of the state park system, waiting the day for when a D is in office who could find the funds to create it. But no, the 2003 Benson R-team was just not interested.

(...gotta go now - time to take my medication!)

[Gavia immer]

Before you see large boats banned, or horsepower limits you will see distance restrictions based on weight... similar to the 300' distance from shore requirement for skicraft. A good example would be if your boat weighs more than 10000lbs, you cannot be above headway speed within 300' (or possibly more) of shore. This will help disspate some of the wave energy before it reaches the shoreline...

Woodsy
From kayak, I've noticed a great many more fresh green trees have fallen in the water this year than in previous years. Take a kayak around and see for yourself.

Last spring, the Dep of Safety suggested 600' to stop wake damage to shorelines but that didn't work out so well, did it? From 600', you can't see what's happened to the shoreline from your wakes.

[chipj29]

From kayak, I've noticed a great many more fresh green trees have fallen in the water this year than in previous years. Take a kayak around and see for yourself.

Last spring, the Dep of Safety suggested 600' to stop wake damage to shorelines but that didn't work out so well, did it? From 600', you can't see what's happened to the shoreline from your wakes.
Could all the trees fallen in the water be a result of high lake levels due to flooding the past 2 seasons?

[ApS]

"...APS I'd love to come sit on your dock some afternoon, just to meet you! As far as experiencing wakes, well, I doubt that either your home or dock bounce as much as my cruiser does when a big wake strikes!:D ..."OK, but bring a House-Bounce-O-Meter® with you. ;)

Bounce, maybe, but I'll bet you stay dryer on your boat than where I'll have you seated on my dock! :)

(Look for a PM).

Afternoons are not as...um...entertaining...as mornings are. I can only speculate as to why the very same cruisers will return, creeping along, in the afternoon. Maybe it's a sensible warming-up of the engines before a headlong blast towards Smith Cove, Saunders Bay, Weirs and Lakeport?

"...In all seriousness, I don't like big wakes, either, and I'm very, very conscious of how much I'm throwing, and where. IMHO, that's a responsibility that comes with operating a largish boat (I sure wish that the captain of the Sophie C would catch on to that)..."
A Formula (http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1411302&postcount=8)on eBay's auction site broke apart (http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1411258&postcount=1)and sank after hitting a Winnipesaukee wake.

"...I'm also intimately familiar with how a wake can stop a sailboat dead in the water..."
And how sailboats are diminishing in numbers on Winnipesaukee too, perhaps?

"...It's just that, as always and on all subjects, I object to punishing everyone for offensive behavior on the part of some.
You may recognize the most offensive of cruisers—and may want to have a word with a few of them yourself.

[Gavia immer]

When the lake gets overfilled, you can expect erosion. The past year of THREE high water episodes will magnify shoreline erosion, with windy days being the worst. Wakes from boats multiply the effect of natural wave action on windy days. On calm days, when no erosion would take place, wakes continue the erosion process and eventually the roots have nothing to hold onto.

A certain number of trees fall in every year. When the trees still have leaves on them, those are recent falls. Compared to previous years, "green falls" since Spring of 2006 are a very high number. "Green falls" are all around, and on all shores. You need to look up close to see that they're newly fallen.

[jetskier]

I want to thank the large cabin cruiser that ran in front of me at high speed near Black's Basin today. I had the right of way and ended up with a huge wake over the bow. Unbelievable!

[Ropetow]

Wonder if it was the same Jack Donkey who came up behind me (maybe 50 feet off my stern) off Echo Point in Alton Bay this afternoon. At least I didn't need to hose down the interior of my bow-rider later!

[Islander]

Sounds like we need a horsepower limit!

[chipj29]

YES! Because one captain bonehead is representative of an entire class of boats. :rolleye2:

[Weekend Pundit]

Just today my missus, son, and a friend were returning from a trip down to Alton Bay to visit a friend and a Carver came through the passage between Pig and Lockes Island at mush-speed. We were trying to get into Smith Cove before the afternoon thunderstorm hit and we had to throttle way back (we didn't want to get airborne!) and endure a soaking from the wake that came splashing over the bow. We didn't get nearly that wet from the rain shower we passed through not 10 minutes before.

The fellow driving the boat (I refuse to say he was piloting because he was just futzing around) was oblivious to the effect his wake was having on the other traffic trying to get in and out of Glendale and Smith's Cove.

Some folks are just clueless. What's worse, some choose to stay that way.:(

[Gatto Nero]

Most of the big cruisers have names on them, right? Perhaps, rather than bundling them all into one category and cursing them as a group, the ones that do something really stupid should be called out by the name of their vessel, with a description of the incident. Minimally, I would think the indignation of being called out as an inconsiderate captain would make them more cognizant of the results of their actions, but it would also allow them the opportunity to state their case and explain why they think their actions were misrepresented.

That would make for some fun reading.

[jrc]

Depending on how you define big, there can't be more than twenty big crusiers berthed in Smith cove. Go find the boat and make the owner responsible for his wake.

A lot of boat owners don't realize that going slower (mush speed) makes a much bigger wake than fully on plane. Maybe we should but that on the seat cushions. :laugh:

[GWC...]

Depending on how you define big, there can't be more than twenty big crusiers berthed in Smith cove.
Not a good guess... :D

[Weekend Pundit]

That cruiser didn't come out of Smith Cove, but from Saunders Bay. He was heading east and cut across the entrance to Glendale and Smith Cove.

I would have checked his bow number or written down the name on the transom but was too busy dealing with the aftermath of the drenching and I didn't want to tarry as the thunderstorms were almost upon us.:eek:

Next time, assuming there is a next time (and of course there will be), I'll be ready with a digital still or video camera...or at least a piece of paper and a scibble stick.

[jrc]

Well if he came out of Saunders, there's a lot more big cruisers in there. It's surprising that people go through that channel when they don't have to. It's my first year in there and I never seem to be able to plane up until I reach FL 26 or FL 53. There's not a lot of boats, they just seem to spaced just right.

From a distance, I saw the Mount Washington go through that channel two years ago. I wish I was closer.

[Silver Duck]

It's not just the cruiser operators that seem to be clueless this season. :rolleye1: I was on vacation last week, and did a lot of cruising at a nice, easy 1200 - 1500 rpm pace; I lost count of the number of boneheads in "family bowriders" that zipped past me within 50 feet.

I even had an encounter with one of the excursion boats that zipped past me in a no wake zone and came so close that I had to reverse my engines! :eek:

Somehow, I gt the feeling that the mandatory boating safety course isn't working all that well....

Silver Duck

[wildwoodfam]

It's not just the cruiser operators that seem to be clueless this season. :rolleye1: I was on vacation last week, and did a lot of cruising at a nice, easy 1200 - 1500 rpm pace; I lost count of the number of boneheads in "family bowriders" that zipped past me within 50 feet.

I even had an encounter with one of the excursion boats that zipped past me in a no wake zone and came so close that I had to reverse my engines! :eek:

Somehow, I gt the feeling that the mandatory boating safety course isn't working all that well....

Silver Duck

and I hope you filed an official complaint to the Crusie Line!

I didn't realize any of the excursion boats on Winni were capable of zipping...I know they throw big wakes - was a favorite past time of my friends and I to take our 15 hp aluminium boats and run them through the wakes of Sophie and Doris!! They were cruising with their big ole wakes - but I would not say they were zippy...:rolleye2:

[Silver Duck]

wildwoodfam

I guess "zip" is kind'o relative. :D Since it was flat calm, I was idling along as slowly as my boat will go (3.7 mph - I checked my GPS), which was all I needed for steerage way. I didn't so much mind him passing me as I did getting cut off! :(

As for filing a complaint, I did so directly with him - via both VHF and the five horn blast "bonehead seranade". :rolleye1: Basically, all it got me was a dirty look out the pilot house window. With no damage or injury involved, I figured there wasn't much sense in a flatlander filing a formal complaint against a local.

And, boy do you have it right about wake size from the Sophie and the Doris. When I see the Sophie going by my slip, I've learned to sit down and hang on; I can't imagine hitting that wake at speed in a small aluminum boat (and, don't want to! :eek: )

Silver Duck