Oops. 'Got to fix that! :emb:

Here's my "belief", based on NMMA's own website (boat manufacturers trying to reverse the decline in the family boating market), plus my personal observations:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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".

Islander versus Islander!
 

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

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.

Accommodation vs Entitlement
 

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.

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...

Please start your own thread
 

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:

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.

Where did you find that stat?

Wow - How a thread changes
 

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.

back on topic
 

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Wake Problems
 

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.

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.

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've hit the nail on the head there.

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.

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

Guys & Gals...

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

Woodsy

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.

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...

Fast is relative
 

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:

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.