Adjusting the No Wake Zone law
 

Basically removing the 6 mph minimum clause.

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...d14a71b81.html

Broad hopper, because I know a lot of people won't bother to open the link, I thought I would copy the article. Thanks for posting the link.

I think the clarification will help. Although experienced boaters understand the law others read into it too much and just use 6 mph which can cause a wake especially on larger boats


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

No,no, not this (topic) again! AHAAAAAA


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Pretty soon you're going to need to pack an overnight bag if you plan to travel more than a couple of miles on the lake.

I agree with you and what you said, Joey. The clarification is needed. Proof of that is BigGuy's comment: " no, not this again!" We have gone over and over it and there is no agreement. There are those that still think the law means you can always go 6 MPH in a NWZ.

Are marine patrol going to have to spend time in NWZ with a radar gun?? Seriously this rep out of Laconia according to the story, should focus on improving his town and the economic down turn they are experiencing when a majority are experiencing growth, instead of what a resident from Gilford sees from his/her Gov. Island Ivory tower. Sad thing is this clown represents me and I cannot even vote against him because I cannot vote in Laconia. We have a department for this it's called DES. This is a "do nothing" bill proposal that is wasting time

For those that are unaware Charlie St.Clair the State Representative referred to is the head of Laconia Motorcycle Week. He also owns the Laconia Antique Center in downtown Laconia.

Also, not all of the houses on Governors Island are waterfront high value homes. There are numerous inland homes that have a much lower value.

But, most importantly, the article did not say he lives on Governors Island and he does not. He lives in Laconia.

Couldn't agree with you more!

I stand corrected and misread, thank you for the clarification, I will edit my post to be correct, but will stand by my opinions of it the proposal

Correct me if I'm wrong. If they remove the 6mph wording, they won't need a radar gun, they would just look at the size of your wake, right?

was being sarcastic

Just so I get this right... it's NOT the landowners that removed the vegetation and changed the shoreline that's responsible for the erosion... it's the boaters? Makes perfect sense to me! The real problem is that you can't fix stupid.

This is NOT adding a law, it is not changing anything. It is trying to clarify that you can't just go 6 MPH as many of you argue, but that NO WAKE means just that.

So the purpose of this bill is to get people to go SLOWER than 6mph in no wake zones? Seriously?

I live on the Bear Island NWZ and would love it if people went through under 12mph. In the summer about one boat every hour, on average, goes through at FULL SPEED!

I think about half of them don't know they are in a NWZ and the other half don't care. Plus most boater have an exaggerated idea of what 6mph is.

If Capt. Dunleavy wants to actually do something constructive about NWZ violations he should send a patrol boat out to Bear and have them hide around the corner. Usually the patrol boats sit out in plain sight. This causes people to act like good citizens... until the patrol boat leaves.

The purpose is to make people understand that NO Wake is just that, BI. To make people understand that it's not Headway Speed, not 6 MPH, it's NO WAKE. You are right though. It needs to be enforced if anything is going to change no matter how they write the law.

What does No Wake actually mean. Every boat, including canoes and kayaks, produces a wake. At 1mph you have a small wake. Yes the wake becomes larger as speed increases. But at no point in increased speed does a wake suddenly appear when there was no wake before.

I have had people tell me they take their PWC through the NWZ at full speed because they don't produce and appreciable wake at high speeds. Which is true. However they are clearly violating the 6mph rule.

Hydrofoils produce very little wake. Will they be able to go through NWZs at high speed under the new rule? How about ground effect boats that actually fly a couple of feet above the water and never touch the water when at speed? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiLxXWgwj0M

Anyway in most instances NWZs are not about wake, they are about safe speed in a congested area. I took part in advocating for the BI NWZ, and I don't think the word erosion was ever used by us. It was about safety.

That is the precise purpose of this law. The bill is being pushed by a Governors Island resident who wants exactly that. This has NIMBY written all over it.

Consider the following. A boat in Paugus Bay wants to get through the Weirs Channel. Normal current in the Weirs Channel is about 1.5 MPH, but if the Lakeport Dam is letting out lots of water the current can get upwards of 4 MPH. If, for example, the current in the Weirs Channel is 2.5 MPH, and the boat can maintain steerage way at 3 MPH, then it will take the boater one hour to get through the half-mile NO-WAKE zone. What happens if the boat behind him needs 4 MPH to maintain steerage way and there is no room for passing?

Last September, I was made aware of this bill. When Bizer did its annual survey in September, I was piloting a boat that could maintain steerageway at about 2 MPH. According to the GPS, I was going 5.1 MPH when this photo of my wake was taken. Those are ripples, not a wake.

Geez, I can’t believe this


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

I mean the twisting and turning people will go thru to try and justify something. They are finally getting things right. If you see white behind you you are making a wake. Get over it!


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

The State of NewHampshire has more laws and restrictions on boating then any other state in the country. In Florida we have substantially more boats per cap.
And basically stick with the Coast Guard guidelines . The lake is used heavy about 8 week ends a year but we have restrictions that imply full usage 365 days a year. Lighten up with this crap

There are those that really believe it is possible to legislate the stupidity out of people.

My opinion of this language change is that to me it creates more ambiguity in the sense that it doesn't specify a maximum speed. At least with 6 MPH it indicated a bit of a measuring stick - not that it was perfect but its something. If a captain doesn't get 6 MPH what makes you think they will understand "the minimum speed necessary to maintain safe steerage".

Maxum, all you need to do to see if you are making a wake is look behind you. How easy is that?

You can change the law all you want, but I bet any amount of money it will have NO impact on anyone's behavior towards their wake, and NOTHING will change... Complete waste of time.

Wake Watchers
 

The lady on the point at Y Landing has scared many of us into dead slow by yelling and flailing her arms, tho:D

I agree that NH should have boating laws that are similar to other states. However, as long as we have the 150 foot safe passage law, NWZ in places like Bear Island and Eagle Island should be unnecessary.

Sorry, but that idea is just nuts.

Before the BI NWZ was created we would sit on the porch and watch the near misses. The area between Bear and Pine was the definition of an accident waiting to happen. The combination of high speed, high volume and going around a blind corner was treacherous. There were collisions, I don't remember the numbers.

Completely disagree. Many boaters can't even measure the 150ft in their head, never mind obeying the law itself (If they even know the law exists). The NWZ is absolutely needed especially in those two particular areas.

For starters it's pretty much impossible to move a boat without causing some sort of wake. So the term "no wake" is just stupid and really shouldn't be used.

Furthermore in the absence of any specific parameters governing speed or size it's a judgment call of the captain and those vary greatly. Again good luck with that.


I get what the spirit of the law is in regards to "no wake" but when somebody comes through a NWZ plowing water and you get mad - just remember that under the current definition it's the slowest possible speed and still maintain steerage. Well this this example maybe the captain feels that going that fast is needed to comfortably meet (for him or her) that requirement. Are they breaking the law? After all when you've got some decent forward momentum it's far easier to maintain a straight course of travel than if you're barely moving and trying to do the same thing.

I disagree with you. I have watched plenty of boats causing no visible wake. I think if Marine Patrol had a bigger presence in NW Zones, almost ALL boats could manage to somehow maintain steerage without making a wake Funny that.

Well, as I said, here we go again[emoji30]


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

I have read about this crazy lady a few times on here now, so I'm looking forward to taking a ride by next summer to see if I can attract her attention just for the entertainment value..!!

Low Wake anyone?
 

We could use a low wake zone to go with the no wake zone. The no wake signs seem silly in some spots, but spot on in others. A no wake should mean it, but allowing up to 6mph in a low wake zone would get better compliance than expecting everyone to crawl along.

Actually, these are two separate problems. Both cause erosion, independently of each other. And of course when combined, it's even worse.

I have gone to the Y-Landing just about every day during the summer, for many many years, to get the newspaper. I have never had this lady yell at me or wave her arms. Never!

Perhaps you are passing by her property at too great a speed. I recommend slowing down before you get to her area and see what she does.

No wake Zones are about Safety
 

No wake zones are about safety not erosion within the no wake zone. My observations are that no wake zones actually increase erosion in the shoreline adjacent to the areas just outside the no wake zone. Boats on plane generate a wake of X. Boats coming off or to plane create a wake of 4X. If it were about erosion we should have no areas where we cause 100 % of the boats traveling an area come off plane and return to cruising speed. Over the years boats on the lake have become progressively larger and faster. This makes tight areas smaller and more dangerous requiring the captain to be precise in navigating tight areas to maintain 150 feet. Mix that with a large variation of the captain's skill level and knowledge of the lake and you have a situation ripe for an accident. While no fan of no-wake zones they reflect the reality of what is required to keep us all safe.

Wake Watcher
 

Shes been yelling at just about everybody for at least twenty years now. Maybe she has a crush on you:D

I’m sure “SAFETY” was the primary reason for making that ridiculously huge no-wake zone in Meredith Bay. :rolleye1:

Lakes Region—Meet City-Speeds
 

Said another way, would "oversized" be a better description? :rolleye2: Also increasing are exhaust fumes and noise—taking-in exhaust pipe noise and over-amplified stereo systems.

Using a 28-footer for waterskiing or tubing in a harbor long-protected by Mother Nature will erode the shoreline. Too often, relaxing on my dock, I'll get wet—can't hear my radio—or have to put a caller on hold. :rolleye1:

At one time, we had no boatlifts, seawalls or breakwaters in Winter Harbor. :confused: These days, they're popping up like mushrooms after an August rain.

Alas, we have no Low-Wake zones—and only one tiny No-Wake area—especially sensible so Loons still can raise their families.

If you've come to the Lakes Region to maintain your hectic "city-speed", you've come to the wrong place. :eek2:

Geez, the lake is beautiful! Slow down and enjoy it.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app