Based on the comments on this thread and others, the whole idea here will not solve any real or perceived issues. Those who flagrantly disregard NWZs, either by choice or ignorance, will continue to do so as will those who parse the language looking for inconsistencies or things that are open for interpretation.

Moreover, it would be really interesting to see increased MP presence and enforcement. My guess is that should that happen, there would be lots of complaints about cost, MP being in the wrong place, unjust tickets, etc.

I'm confident I know what to do when I encounter a NWZ now and should the wording change. Most important, I get a kick out of reading different thoughts and opinions on the subject here on the forum!

More MP Officers? Yes, I would agree! Last year I think I saw 4 MP boats total, all season!! Except for the 4th of July. I really didn’t see any MP boats on the 4th either, however I did see a lot of blue lights!!

Of the four I did see, two were at the same time. We were coming out of the Weirs channel heading into the big lake. We passed two marine patrol boats, they were heading into the channel. The first MP boat had two MP officers on it. I waved, they both waved back. The second MP boat, the old war horse boat, had three MP officers on board. I waved, two waved back, the third told me to slow down!!! REALY!!

In case it wasn't clear from my post, I am all for an increased, more visible presence of the MP!

I hope you didn't think that I thought you weren't. I was agreeing with you.

I guess I was pointing out that even the MP officers don't agree on what the proper boat speed. I was clearly going slow, I bet I wasn't doing 3 MPH against the current. I guess I can say 4 out of 5 officers agreed with me LOL!!

These threads help me remember why I stepped out of fighting hard for boating rights in NH.... everyone has there own thoughts. And there are valid points to most arguments. But no one ever seems to want to discuss compromise.

Do a search on "what does no wake mean" You will find plenty of definitions most notably this one:

http://wow.uscgaux.info/Uploads_wowII/095-45-01/Slow_No_Wake.pdf

What most all the definitions have in common is that there is no mention of speed relative to no wake. This law will do what some of us have been fighting for years for, which is to bring the NH legislation in line with Federal laws, concerning boating regulations.

Cry me a river!
 

The article in the original post stated that some guy on Governor's Island was complaining about erosion caused by wakes of boats going 6 mph. Give me a break! As I've said in prior posts, what about those of us that are subjected to 3 foot rollers coming in from wake surf boats and cruisers? What about those people that live on Locke's Island facing mainland? This is not a no-wake zone, and these people are subjected to huge amounts of traffic and substantial wakes. Come see the damage to my shoreline that these wakes cause, then talk to me about erosion. But as I also said before, I knew what I was getting into when I bought the property, so I'm not complaining about the erosion or the traffic. What I am complaining about are the people that are crying over a ripple of water or "white foam" behind a boat that is going slower than a duck swimming.

Let's just make the entire lake a no-wake zone, then see what the next thing is that people will complain about.

Even the USCG Aux states the following in their no wake definition:

It has nothing to do with you actually making a small wake or not. The speed and maintaining steerage depends on your boat and boat characteristics.

DING DING DING, exactly, although as I previously stated the ability to confidently maintain safe steerage is a direct reflection of the driver's skill and ability to handle whatever boat they are operating and the circumstance and conditions at the time. Thus the relationship between wake size and a designated NWZ that everyone seems to think should be wave free is fundamentally flawed.

Everyone needs to just slow down. What's the rush? :confused:

Big waste of time. Does anyone think someone who speeds through a no-wake zone is going to now slow down if they make this change?

Yes as crazy as it seems that whole no wake zone was extended due to documented injuries at Meredith Marina due to the large amount of wake in the area. All of Meredith bay is travelled pretty much in a north south direction so there is no confusion in the sea to break up wake.

Or better yet
 

Let's just say NO Power Boats

I always find it comical when shorefront owners complain about boats interfering with raising of Loons and interfering with their nests. You do know that Loons build their nests on the shoreline where all the "cottages", "McMansions" are built? If not for all of these there would be plenty of shoreline for Loons nests. All the shorefront owners pushed the Loons out. Not just boaters interfering with Loons.

Winter Harbor: No Wake for One Loon Nest...Regularly Violated...
 

Because their feet are far back on their bodies, Loons must wriggle on shore to build and tend to their nests.

Because Loons select low and marshy areas for their nests, Loons' favored habitat is unsuitable for building cottages and McMansions.

Even before actually raising their families, Loons are highly territorial. With that requirement of a huge "Lebensraum", Loon nests are rarely located in sight of one another. So territorial, even much larger birds are in danger of a fatal Loon attack. :eek:

One visit to Winter Harbor's single favorable marshy area would enlighten those who think boaters aren't a problem. :rolleye1:

ApS, I am not sure what you are trying to get at with your post... Concerns over loons and defining the correct verbiage for no-wake legislation aren't really the same topic, and in fact are really quite unrelated.

Boaters are indeed a problem for loons, but changing how we define no-wake isn't going to change that.

People will always break the no-wake zone, no mater how it is defined, and yep on occasion it will happen around a loon nest, and might cause a problem.
I have also seen loon nest problems in area's where the wind causes the wave action etc.

You always seem to amaze me with how you try and argue problems. Tying unrelated issue together, to try and justify something....

so what you are saying is, there is not enough suitable nesting sites on the many miles of shoreline on Winnipesaukee? Which means its not boats or shoreline houses preventing loon nesting, its just not naturally suitable to nest on Winnipesaukee.

Are you sure in the early days of building houses on the shoreline of Winnipesaukee people were not filling in low marshy areas to make it suitable to build?

I don't think finding a place to nest is an issue for the loons. I think the problem is when boats either make too big a wake while they are nesting, causing the nest to flood and also when the baby is small and the mother and father loon take it out into the boat traffic. I have seen them almost get run over many times.

After doing some research I found loons prefer steep drop offs close to shore so they approach their nest underwater. I also found loons use the man made nesting platforms because of extensive shoreline development. So I call foul on APS. The extensive shoreline development is to blame for the lack of nesting sites on Winni. All the houses on lake Winni shoreline drove the loons out.

Supporting No-Wake Restrictions...
 

• To the first comment, I've only referred to the area I know best—which is Winter Harbor.

• Of the six or seven shoreline miles of Winter Harbor, there has been only one documented Loon nest for as long as I've been here.

• As to "early days of building houses", there are now expensive houses on shoreline lots my Dad used to call "unbuildable". Also, older maps list large areas of Alton Bay as "unbuildable".

• Loon-protection has never been a consideration in shoreline development.

• They're related: I'm answering the previous quote—one that emphasizes Winnipesaukee's Loon Population.

• Let's see...No-wake zones don't include Loons' safety—but they do? :confused:

• ApS is content with Loons as fowl. ;)

• A B&W pre-war photo (taken from Tuftonboro's Camp Boycroft) of three miles of Winter Harbor's northeast shoreline showed only one human structure! Fortunately, that entire shoreline has never been suitable for Loon nests.

• Contradicting your undocumented website, the ONE nest in Winter Harbor (formerly Tuftonboro Bay) is in shallow water.

• However suitable the shoreline, nesting platforms are highly desirable, as they protect against egg-robbing raids by Racoons.

• As recently as within the past decade, we had no boatlifts, seawalls or breakwaters inside Winter Harbor's protected waters.

• Photos I've taken of Winter Harbor's northeast shoreline—only a few years apart—are unrecognizable. :eek2: Rocks—and some large boulders—are falling out of the shoreline! :eek:

You people are all looney, but have a Merry Christmas! :)

So then your father didn't really understand what he was observing?

:D

• ApS is content with Loons as fowl.

• A B&W pre-war photo (taken from Tuftonboro's Camp Boycroft) of three miles of Winter Harbor's northeast shoreline showed only one human structure! Fortunately, that entire shoreline has never been suitable for Loon nests.

• Contradicting your undocumented website, the ONE nest in Winter Harbor (formerly Tuftonboro Bay) is in shallow water.

• However suitable the shoreline, nesting platforms are highly desirable, as they protect against egg-robbing raids by Racoons.

• As recently as within the past decade, we had no boatlifts, seawalls or breakwaters inside Winter Harbor's protected waters.

• Photos I've taken of Winter Harbor's northeast shoreline—only a few years apart—are unrecognizable. Rocks—and some large boulders—are falling out of the shoreline!

Maybe the one shallow water nest is because there is nothing else available.

nesting platforms may help loons vs. racoons but the main reason for nesting platforms is because of shoreline development.

Boatlifts, seawalls, breakwaters proves my point. Shoreline development is pushing loon nesting out.

wild animals all over the world are struggling because of losing habitat to human development. Winnipesaukee loons are no different. Bottomline: There would be a lot more loon nests on Winnipesaukee shoreline if not for all the shoreline development by humans.

No Wake—What's Not to Understand?
 

Protecting those nesting sites that remain becomes even more important.

Shouldn't modern Humanity's dominion over wild animals be expected to take a turn for the better?

Most images of floating artificial Loon nest sites don't show any human habitation in the background. Some installers (the "Loon Rangers") of floating artificial Loon nest sites are shown wading out to anchor them.

https://planetmichigan.files.wordpre...pg?w=500&h=375

It's especially incumbent on oversized boats and PWCs to observe the security of our remaining Loon population on Lake Winnipesaukee. IMO.

https://i.servimg.com/u/f91/18/11/38/95/fullsc40.jpg

Good advice, APS!

As long as this thread has gone loony, its worth pointing out that the natural habitat for loons is moving north. There aren't many loons in MA and CT any more and the population was declining in NH before Loon Preservation Committee (LPC) started in 1975. If you like loons, join and donate to the LPC. It is why we have so many.

Today, there are three times the 1975 population, partly because the LPC puts out almost 100 artificial nests each year, and rescues loons in distress.

Shoreline building and boat wake are issues for sure, but the changing climate is a factor in moving the species north. With more spikes in temperature and rainfall during the incubation season (May-July), eggs are getting hotter and nests are swamped by rising waters. This lowers the hatch rate. Here, artificial nests can help.

When loons build natural nests, they don't always pick the no-wake zones anyway. Then, Darwinism comes into play, with the successful loon pairs choosing a better spot.

Shoreline developement -what does APS not understand
 

Within the Adirondack Park, some of the highest rates of development are occurring along lakeshores. The development of shoreline for seasonal, residential homes often creates an increase in recreational lake activity that coincides with critical breeding and nesting times for the common loon.

Ecological changes which have been documented as a result of shoreline development include: fewer territorial loons inhabiting developed lakes, decreased availability of potential nesting sites, reduced hatching success of loon pairs in close proximity to developed areas and increased susceptibility to scavenging predators that are attracted to human refuse. Currently, many local and regional studies are being conducted in order to assess the impacts of shoreline development and increased recreational activity on the reproductive success of loons.

The above is an excerpt from one study of many found on-line.

It's simple, Loons build nests on the shoreline, extensive shoreline development takes away those potential nests sites.

OK, but none of that changes the basic point that boats can be bad for loons

My point was it's not just boats that are bad for loons. Many shoreline property owners don't want to acknowledge that.

Human interaction as a whole whether it be for recreational purposes or development purposes impacts wildlife. It's just a matter of where that tipping point is where either animals leave and don't come back or stay put and adapt to human presence.

Something In The Future We Can Do Something About...
 

Shoreline property owners pay their share of taxes; otherwise, all they can do is to wring their hands over shoreline development—which was entirely beyond their control.

The intensification in number and size of boat wakes are razing Winnipesaukee's shorelines. Future damage to shorelines is something that can be controlled.

I pay my fair share of taxes in a Winni shorefront town as well, on 2 properties. Not sure what that has to do with loons.

Just because shoreline developement can not be reversed does not change the fact that shoreline development is the major reason for loons losing most of their nesting sites.

I disagree with intensification in number and size of boat wakes. There are more and more pontoon boats and less and less large cruiser type boats. There are more and more people buying property off the lake locally and buying a small day boat/pontoon boat instead of living on a large cruiser for a weekend. Alot less large cruisers on the lake and many more pontoon and day boats.

Discounting....
 

I think you might be missing the newly prevalent wake boats, designed to make bigger wakes, and often operated in otherwise sheltered locations.

I spent 6 summers canoeing in a million acres of almost completely non-motorized lakes on the Minn./Ontario border where loons are prevalent. Every loon nest I saw was on a very wind protected and level, small shrubby shoreline, usually on a small island.
I would guess a great number of lakeside homes dont have this type of location and do not affect loon nesting at all. Homes back in coves are more likely to affect likely nesting but only if the right kind of shoreline is present. However just a number of homes & the associated activity would disrupt nearby nesting locations.
The nearness of people activity and the 'artificial' waves of boats in otherwise protected areas are a big problem.
Of course fishing is a great risk to loons as a fatal dose of lead is one large split shot. One. Fatal. And then discarded line is a scourge also, to all kinds of wildlife.

So...us fisherman need to abide by the no lead law & keep our discarded line in the boat. Wake boaters need to stay away from sheltered coves. All cove goers should be aware. Prime nesting areas could be protected or even conserved. Loons should be left alone even by kayakers.

"Boating Intensity" Intensifying...
 

• Developers in my particular Florida County are required to donate to the County a less-desirable building lot that is equivalent in size to the one they are developing.

• That unbuilt lot is added to the County's Conservation Trust. (Which abuts 100s of thousands of Federally-owned wildlife refuge acres—where Jet-Skis are prohibited).

• Well intentioned Lakes Region Towns could set aside tax monies to buy-back suitable Loon shoreline habitat for restoration. However, there's no point in initiating such a program, as oversized boaters will continually assault such restorations. :(

• As for "boating intensity", you probably didn't know that Johnson's Cove once had a waterski slalom course set up in its calm waters. :eek2: Visit Johnson's Cove on any summer weekend to see what "boating intensity" looks like today. :rolleye2:

:idea: Maybe a photograph of boat houses, docks, boat lifts, breakwaters or dock awnings that have been "downsized" would help me understand the reduction in boat wakes mentioned above? :rolleye2:

As a life-long aviator in the 'Boros, he had a bird's-eye view of land that was compromised in one way or another. :cool:

I agree completely that virtually all development and human activity at the scale that Winni experiences has a negative impact on loons or other aspects of the environment. But I'm pretty sure you're not suggesting that none of us use the lake.

Instead the reasonable conclusion is that we should all trim back a bit in ways that are relatively easy. Just for example--the waterfront homeowners you point at (and I'm included in this category) should make sure to have natural buffers between their houses at the water, not broad green lawns with fertilizer.

You can't put the Genie back in the bottle. As my dad use to say when I did something that wasn't smart "this is the first day of the rest of your life, get it right"!

Exactly. We should not abandon homes, boats, etc. We should just use them right

ApS,

Maybe you haven't heard but the numbers I heard this year on Loon population show that there are more loons now in NH then there where when efforts were started to protect them.

What does that mean? It means that the efforts in place are working in large. While yes there could be and are situations where for a variety of reasons some nest sites are not working out.....Those instances aren't jeopardizing the come back of the loon population.

Trying to insinuate that no-wake zone violators are jeopardizing the loon protection efforts is a stretch.... The Wind, and the waves it creates have just as much to do that in most cases....

Anyway, what do I know, I spend all summer watching and checking on loon sites with my wife.......

How big of a wake can a loon possibly make?

It's the law
 

Doesn't matter to some how big the wake is, as long as the Loon doesn't exceed 6 MPH. I think they can do that underwater.

Loons Select Quiet Waters...
 

Naturally strong winds can hit the rocky breakwaters on the Broads side of Wolfeboro Neck, and send spray over the next breakwater. :eek: It is probably natural wind-driven erosion that makes the newly-built lots facing the Broads so very steep—even subjecting the owners to DES interventions. :eek2:

Those areas are not the areas that Loons select for their nests. Loons, like some people, prefer waters away from the rage that Nature uses to "naturally" erode shorelines.

On sunny days—those known for three days of gale force winds—the upper surface of our dock boards (built 1983) never get wet. However, any weekend of over-sized boat wakes will inconsiderately soak our dock—even to a condition of hazardous green and slippery saturation. :(

https://i.servimg.com/u/f91/18/11/38/95/waves_10.jpg

Build your dock higher off the water, problem solved.