I would define that in this case as any MP vessel making repetitive stops for low-risk infractions or subjective enforcements. EG: an officer that has a unique interpretation of a "wake" and wants to play water mechanic.

Personally, I too would like to see more MP presence in some areas and at the same time they should be mindful to not take the "fun" out of the lake, but to ensure that egregious violators are handled.

From the scenario described at the top of this thread, it *appears* that the enforcements cited in Alton Bay were probably not even in the top 10 list of things the MP could have been spending time on. It would also be nice for someone from the Marine Patrol to have more regular presence on this forum, since it is very active and would help both sides (MP and Boater) be better informed about attitudes and issues.

So your saying someone shouldn't be in a canoe on a weekday between Sleepers and Rattlesnake and somehow this accident is partially the canoeists fault? Tell me your kidding!

First off that area is not nearly as busy as the West Alton side of sleepers and much calmer than the broads side of Rattlesnake. It's a great area for paddling around. I wouldn't, bat an eyelash of canoeing, paddling, whatever in that area during the weekday.

Secondly, that canoeist has the right to be anywhere he dam well wants and certainly doesn't deserve to get run over by some jerk off not keeping watch in a boat.

Sorry Maxum but I couldn't disagree with you more on this one. The guy in the powerboat is 100% the idiot here.

Dan

Captain Clowns
 

I have to agree... while the Marine Patrol should NOT be harassing people needlessly there are MORE than ENOUGH idiots out there for them to be dealing with.

Sorry, should have called them "assault boats". A striking resemblance to the Navy Seal assault boats.

They are both idiots. Look Dan while I get the whole "I have a right" thing, but let's have some sensibility here. A canoe it designed for protected still waters NOT to be used in a large open area of this lake. OK yes at times it can be done safely but those times are far and few between IMHO. Also just because you "can" doesn't mean "you should". However I would tend to give the boat driver some slack (albeit not much) because these people that insist on going out in kayaks and canoes and now to stupid stand up paddle boards... in the middle of the lake in areas where there is a fair amount of traffic and where it can be be VERY DIFFICULT to see them aren't free and clear of responsibility here either. I've come up on kayaks out in the middle of the broads and it scared the hell out of me as I did not see them until I was fairly close and no I'm not driving my boat like hell either.

It may not make sense to be out in rough, busy waters in a canoe....but they still have the right of way. There are many canoeists on the lake, and kayakers too. Look at all the YMCA camps and groups that send out the campers in droves in all sorts of conditions. It is up to the power boat driver to keep a diligent look-out. The driver of the powerboat is totally the one at fault.

If you read the WMUR article about the canoe and boat accident, it ends with the fact that changes are pending.

They are not going to charge the canoe paddler. They are going to charge the boater and my guess would a little more than failure to keep a lookout. Anyone want to take odds on alcohol being involved?

All I can say is wow! "Stupid stand up paddle boards" really?? One of the most selfish posts I have read on this forum in a long time... It's posts like this that make me think the speed limit proponents were right...

No reply needed.

Dan

I have no issue with MP.

They finally stopped the warnings and started writing up the half-wits who anchor well inside the 150ft markers at the West Alton sandbar. The next day, I walked over and warned a couple boaters who were starting to set up shop there again. Too bad they didn't pay it forward. The pontoon that came in behind them got ticketed an hour later.

I was sitting at my dock in Alton Bay waiting for the fireworks to start on the 12th when I saw MP heading out at headway speed just before Sandy Point. Said to my wife, that guy coming in looks awfully close from here.

Yup. Lights come on. Paperwork is exchanged.

They are doing their job.

Totally agree, no excuse, however the question is, how do we avoid another mishap? I have also come up onto kayaks that were lost in the chop. I don't travel fast so it's not a problem to me but I have seen kayakers that have a high viz flag on a whip. I hunt and I where orange, I want to be seen, I don't want to get hit by a boat if I'm in a canoe or a kayak. Common sense is every ones responsibility. We try to spot buoys that are on the chart as we navigate the lake and sometimes stop and look around, confused, and OH Yeah, there it is, why couldn't I see that? I know a canoe is not a buoy but a flag would give something that could be seen over a bow that rides high. just sayin.

Just saw three skiers behind a boat. I know it's illegal, but I must admit, I enjoyed seeing it. I don't know what harm they were doing and it reminded me of the old days.

Good point. Maybe kayaks and other low to the water craft should have flags. Whoops, that would mean more laws?!!!!
My personal favorite...the fools that were kayaking Wolfeboro Bay during the fireworks finale. With a stern light. Legal, yeah. Would I be so crazy? No.
You can't legislate common sense, just sayin.
But in the meantime you just have to keep your eyes open.

Vigilance, vigilance, vigilance! Being on the water is a huge responsibility and you must be aware of all that is going on around you all the time! Your head needs to be on a swivel! Down where I live, a newly licensed charter boat captain recently sliced a 16' runabout nearly in half, plowing right into him at 25 knots! Captain of the charter said he never saw him. Really!?

Correct
 

There were 3 towables, one Big Mabel (looks like a floating sofa) and two red sleds (non inflated). It just seemed very dangerous as quite a few times the Mabel went airborne and kids flew up in the air and seemed to land on top of each other when they wiped out. When he lost one kid off the red sled it seemed like no one let the driver know and they travelled quite a distance before circling back for the kid in the water. From our vantage point there were several that looked to be underage to be observers. They always circled back near the Alton Bay fireboat dock to change riders and observers. It may look like a lot of fun, but I would be nervous towing that many small kids if something happened and they all had to be plucked from the drink.

All I can say is I hope that your callous attitude does not result in any harm to others. This lake belongs to all of us.

I did some asking around, and come to find out, I know the driver of the boat, who feels awful right now. He's been a long time summer resident here, and knows the lake quite well. I'm told that it was a dark green canoe and neither he nor his passenger was able to spot the canoe in amongst the waves. Having a dark-colored canoe or kayak that's low in the water makes it much more difficult to spot. If the canoeist was wearing dark clothing at the time, that would make him blend in even more.

Fortunately, there were no serious injuries. Canoes can be replaced, people can't.

This accident should serve as a reminder to kayakers and canoeists that brighter is better when on the water. That's why I have a lime green kayak with solas tape, a red PFD with solas tape, white paddles with solas tape on each side, a bright orange boonie hat, and a YakAttack VISICarbon Pro flag/light mounted on the back of the kayak. If for some reason someone doesn't see any of that, there's the whistle and air horn to fall back on.

Just as people drive defensively on the road, kayakers and canoeists also need to paddle defensively when on the water. I've been known to paddle forward like a madman in some instances, and other times I've done a complete 180 and paddled in the other direction in order to put distance between myself and an oncoming boat. When they've passed or turned, then I do another 180 and continue on my way. I may get a little more exercise, but at least I'll get to my destination safely.

I do some kayaking, and I have a 23ft boat on the lake. After a few people scared me when I came up on them without seeing them. I attached a large orange bicycle flag to the kayak.. Although, I can say that I stay inside the markers, away from the boat channels and you wouldn't catch me out in the middle of the lake in kayak or canoe.. Way tooo dangerous..

If so concerned.
Just go down to Marine Patrol in Gilford and request a copy of the Marine Patrol report - or the log book for that day and time.
All is public information.

Headway Speed Rule
 

I would print a copy of these rules and keep them in your boat. The MP has no authority to tell you to go see your mechanic to adjust your idle. According to the definition of Headway Speed (see paragraph VI below), a boat could be operated at 10mph if it is the slowest speed that boat could be operated to maintain steerage. Then the "No Wake Rule" (see paragraph VIII below) just defers back to the Headway Speed rule. Any judge would toss a violation right out under these circumstances.


270-D:1 Definitions. – In this chapter:
I. "Boat'' means every description of watercraft other than seaplanes, capable of being used or used as a means of transportation on the water and which is primarily used for noncommercial purposes, or leased, rented, loaned or chartered to another for such use.
II. "Commercial vessel'' means any vessel carrying passengers for hire as a common carrier of passengers or property.
III. "Commissioner'' means the commissioner of the department of safety.
IV. "Director'' means the director of the division of state police, department of safety.
V. "Division'' means the division of state police, department of safety.
VI. "Headway speed'' means 6 miles per hour or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way.
VI-a. "Inflatable tube'' means an inflatable device manufactured and designed for the specific purpose of towing persons behind a motorboat. Such device shall be manufactured with a point of attachment for a tow line in addition to any safety handles, ropes, or lines, for each person being towed.
VII. "Motorboat'' means any vessel being propelled by machinery, whether or not such machinery is the principal source of propulsion.
VIII. "No wake area'' means an area where a boat is to be operated only at headway speed.
IX. "PFD'' means a personal flotation device of a type approved by the United States Coast Guard.
X. "Person'' means person as defined in RSA 21:9.
XI. "Vessel'' means any type of watercraft used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water, except a seaplane.
XII. "Wake'' means any disturbance created on the surface of the water as a result of combined vessel motion and hull displacement.
XIII. "Water skiing'' means a person being towed behind a moving motorboat on skis or on aquatic equipment designed for towing an aquaplane or any other device, including bare feet of a person, but excluding a person being towed on an inflatable tube or in another boat or motorboat.
Source. 1990, 171:1. 1995, 273:2, eff. July 1, 1995. 2011, 224:268, eff. July 1, 2011. 2012, 168:2, 3, eff. June 7, 2012.

Chimi, thanks, good points, but, just as when stopped on the road, best to stick with, yes sir/no sir, at the scene, and make your valid point later

I may take a ding for this, if so, that's OK. I think there are MP Officers out there that occasionally make bad calls.

Overall, I think they do a great job and I am very glad to see them on the lake. Whenever they are around, safe passage seems to magically stretch to 150' or 200'. Headway speed seems to slow and most boaters are generally more careful about changing direction, accelerating nearing other boats.

It is a tough job, I am sure and I believe that they do a great job 98% of the time but they do seem to make some bad calls on occasion. Inconsistency is a bit of a pet peeve for me. It is troubling to sit at WAM sandbar on one day with boats stacked up barely 10’ apart and boats clearly anchored inside the 150’ buoy and MP simply cruise through without incident, only to have them warn and ticket the same violations the following day.

They appear to warn/ticket some boats for night/light violations and not others. They give warning to boats that travel too slow in the channels, which is not a violation of which I am aware, and others too fast. It is difficult to hear of them spending time enforcing some laws having little or nothing to do with safety (NWZ & NRZ) while we see dangerous boaters and jet skiers wreaking havoc somewhere else.

I am sure they ignore some violations, like some brilliant maneuvers in the Weirs channel simply because grabbing the violator is more of a disturbance than the violation itself.

I chalk of many of the bad calls as lack of training, looking somewhere else at the time or simply a human mistake that they probably would not repeat. Just like plumbers and carpenters, it is conceivable that there are bad MP’s out there as well. My guess is they would get weeded out over time.

I thank them for the great work they do (98%) and I am glad they are out there keeping control, maintaining the safely and ready to react in an emergency, day or night. Like our land-based Officers and Fire Fighters, they will place themselves in danger to protect the general public.

What is the actual law or rule regarding a boat operator being "responsible" for the wake created by the boat he/she is operating? I have heard the expression "responsible for his/her own wake" but not sure what the word "responsible" implies.

I think this was addressed in the COREG. I'm going to investigate. This is used frequently in maritime and should be applied on the big lake.

Also there is a COREG regarding breaking rules to get out of 'harm's way'. This incident came up when a small boat made an evasive action to prevent a rouge wave from flooding the boat. Yet the MP sees it differently and cited the operator.

I think both of these should be seriously considered before something actually happen. The latter I believe was presented by SBONH but could not find a sponsor.

This is a good question. I think it would be very difficult to prove most circumstances where a specific wake caused damage to another boat.

I was fishing in a kayak in Alton Bay one morning where a 35' Baja Outlaw came into to dock in his slip. He swung by at the perfect speed and the perfect arc to produce a 4' wave coming straight at me. I am pretty sure he was outside the 150' safe passage distance so he was not violating any law that I know. I have a sit-on-top and was able to spin my kayal for a bow first entry. My gear (3 poles, tackle boxes, fish finder, VHF, Phone, anchor, lights, etc.) are all waterproofed and secured fast so other than a good soaking from the neck down, no harm nor damage. I needed to execute a good brace to keep upright as the kayak pitched when the wave hit. The shape, speed and size of the wave ensured I went through it, not over it. (I actually enjoyed the experience as I now better understand what kind of a wave I can recover from without capsizing.)

I sometimes wonder if it was an elderly couple in a canoe, or if my gear was not lashed down, what recourse would be possible. A witness could easily identify the boat, now sitting a half mile away in their slip, and could identify a huge wake clearly from their boat. It was otherwise calm and quiet. Proving this one would seem much, much easier than most. I am sure most incidents are much more difficult to prove.

My concern is when a boat is far less than 150' from the shoreline, traveling at half throttle and putting out a 3' - 4' deep wake. They do it all the time in front of our property. We fasten our boats loosely to survive the wake but sometimes the lines are strained to the limit. Not to mention the erosion that occurs. Many boaters pass us by within 40' to 60' of the shore, dock, swimming area, etc., and don't have a clue what 150' looks like.

Are you sure that is still illegal???

No I am not sure. I just thought it was only two skiers.

http://nhrsa.org/law/270-d-3-motorbo...nd-aquaplanes/

Partial:
270-D:3 Motorboats Towing Water Skiers And Aquaplanes

Last revised 1990
I. No person shall operate a motorboat while towing water skiers, aquaplanes, or similar devices unless another person is present in the motorboat who is physically able to observe and assist the person or appurtenance being towed. The observer shall be 13 years of age or older.
II. The operator of the motorboat shall be responsible for compliance with the navigation requirements under this subdivision for both the vessel and the person or appurtenance being towed. In addition, any person being towed by a motorboat shall comply with all navigation rules.
III. No more than 2 persons may be towed on water skis, aquaplanes, or other devices from the same motorboat at the same time. When 2 persons are being towed, 2 observers, in addition to the operator, shall be in the towing vessel. Such observers shall be 13 years of age or older. Notwithstanding this paragraph, more than 2 skiers may be towed if a special permit is issued by the director.

That is way out of date, this was issued in 2012:

270-D:3 Motorboats Towing Water Skiers and Aquaplanes. –
I. No person shall operate a motorboat while towing water skiers, aquaplanes, or similar devices unless another person is present in the motorboat who is physically able to observe and assist the person or appurtenance being towed. The observer shall be 13 years of age or older.
II. The operator of the motorboat shall be responsible for compliance with the navigation requirements under this subdivision for both the vessel and the person or appurtenance being towed. In addition, any person being towed by a motorboat shall comply with all navigation rules.
III. No more than 6 persons may be towed on one or more inflatable tubes and no more than 2 persons may be towed on water skis, aquaplanes, or other devices from the same motorboat at the same time. When 3 or more persons are being towed, 2 observers, in addition to the operator, shall be in the towing vessel. Such observers shall be 13 years of age or older. Notwithstanding this paragraph, more than 2 skiers may be towed if a special permit is issued by the director.
IV. Except in connection with water events and exhibitions authorized by the director, no towing of water skiers, aquaplanes or similar devices shall be conducted during the period between sunset and sunrise.
V. No person shall be towed on water skis or other appurtenances unless the person is wearing a Coast Guard approved type 1, 2, or 3 PFD, except when directly participating or competing in an American Water Ski Association approved event or exhibition, authorized by a special permit issued by the director of state police.
Source. 1990, 171:1. 1994, 200:1, eff. May 24, 1994. 2011, 224:270, eff. July 1, 2011. 2012, 168:1, eff. June 7, 2012

Thank you, I really wasn't sure considering that you can tow more than 2 on a tube now.

So for part III, Can you have 2 kids in 1 tube, with 1 observer on a 3 person PWC? Or does 2 in the tube put you over the 3 person limit?

By default I say 1 in the tube, 1 observer. I would love to have a "law" to fallback on when my kids beg me to go together.

I don't know if it's against law or not to tow 2 people with 2 people aboard a 3-person PWC, but in your example you have exceeded the capacity of the PWC by 1 person if the tube happens to fail and no one else can pick up the 4th person.

How about just saying "NO!"

Regarding Marine Patrol - I'd suggest that anyone with an issue w/MP take your boat over to Sebago and see what life w/no rules is like. Boats "plowing" along the shore well inside 150' tossing huge wakes; no regard for dropping wakes around marina's or mooring fields, no 150' rule.

I was with a buddy a couple of weekends ago and there are 3 boats heading towards a choke point, all on a plane. No one slowed down. They passed within 20 feet of each other. We were one of them. Now- that is scary!

I for one am glad the MP is around and appears to be doing a little more enforcement. People need to be thinking, "They might stop me", and maybe they will operate in a safer manner.

On the issue of kayaks and canoes in the lake - Did those people who have been carping about how kayaks and canoes have no place in the middle of the lake ever think, "If I slow down, maybe I would have a better chance of seeing them?" Me thinks no. I'm betting the thinking is more along the lines of, "those @*%& (!'s are ruining MY fun. They need to go." The person who said "selfish" was absolutely correct!

When towing with a pwc you can only have one person in the water. You must have room on the craft for them.
Doesn't matter if another boat is nearby placing chase or acting as a home base.

I've always wondered about this. Is there an RSA somewhere that states this?

I can't find one. It would seem that there's nothing illegal about being left on a tube (or in a PFD) out in the middle of the lake with no tow boat in sight.

Yeah thanks, I have that part down, I am asking more out of curiosity. I have been saying no for years. With our boat out of the water this summer I wanted to see if I really need to keep saying no. Sounds like I do based on some other actual responses.

Your "Perfect Wave"?
 

A few years ago, I researched this question of "wake liability", and found only one settled case—ever—which happened on the seacoast of Maine. (A fatality).

You're correct in the "shaping" of wakes. Too often, the wave that's going to get me soaked is one I hear behind me!

___________

An oversized boat that accelerates, turns, or slows down can "shape" a huge wake.

Seen from a distance, one's "at-speed" wake should be free of "curling" waves. As these oversized waves come ashore, they reach shallower water, the wake becomes taller, becomes compressed laterally, and increases the (literal) impact on the shoreline.

Oftentimes, they will "break" even worse when combined with other oversized boats' wakes.The erosive effect on the shoreline is easy to see, and turbidity is even worse when combined with strong winds.

Since north-facing shorelines face the worst of winter's winds for many months, shoreline erosion is minimized by the natural formation of ice. The effects on the lake's tree-line by the summer season of boating—especially large boats—can't be minimized.

Photographically, I'm following the "travels" of a mixed clump of mature shoreline trees. That clump of trees has not only slid further into the lake, it can be expected to collapse entirely into the lake someday soon. Only a mossy bread-basket-sized boulder is keeping the clump from falling even sooner.

A few years ago, I noticed the "lead" tree could not have started growing as close to the water as it was. The two largest trees had been growing "properly" meaning—straight up.

Last year, the trees had taken a "list to port". This June, I noticed that the maple's new leaves that had only just sprouted this spring, were under the surface of the water.

The second photo is of a different maple along our shoreline. (The photo appeared here at the forum about ten years ago).

I'd estimated its age at 50 years—and it couldn't have rooted with its roots suspended over the lake. At that time, all that soil had washed into the lake, and except for two roots, the tree has disappeared. (I'd hoped to count its growth rings).

I can be assured a soaking by the wake I don't see—but hear—behind me!

In short..."Beware the breaking wake".

:eek:

I did find this on the Marine Patrol webpage:

•What is the difference between a ski craft and a PWC?
A ski craft is defined as, less than 13' in length as manufactured, capable of exceeding 20 mph, and has the capacity to carry not more than the operator and one other person. There are additional regulations that ski craft operators must follow. A personal watercraft (pwc) has the capacity to carry more than the operator and one passenger and must follow the regulations set forth for a motor boat.

That being said, if a PWC must follow the rules set forth for boats, then including the person on the tube they cannot be over capacity and must save a spot for the rider.

It is not illegal for someone to be floating in the lake on a tube enjoying the day, but in a situation where they are doing watersports behind a vessel the law must be adhered to.

Not trying to be difficult, but can you show me the law that says that? I can't find anything that addresses it.