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.

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...

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

Empty lake
 

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.

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.

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.

Now, let's not exagerate here!
 

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

Huh?
 

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?

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.

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.

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/Fin...t%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. "

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.

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 NEED my boat too.
 

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!

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?

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".

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.

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.

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...

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???

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.

Just how do you spell hyperbole?
 

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...." ;)

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...

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.

Islander , Don't even bother...
 

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?

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.

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:

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.

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?

Runoff—from "Science News"
 

IMHO, DES should worry about all those things, but here's what Science News wrote about runoff—excerpted:

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.

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

Maine Needs Cruisers, too
 

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:
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.

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.

Dave R makes an intersting point -
 

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!

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, .

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".