Shout out to Carver Captain
 

Thank you for the damaging wake you and your 35 foot Carver created leaving the cove between Mark and Timber on Saturday night, July 24.

Two of the boats in our raft were damged when your wake continually slammed onto the side of my boat, causing my boat to repeatedly bounce against the boat beside me. I now have the first, and only, gouges along the lenght of my gunwale. Every thing on our counter was launched on to the floor, spilling open.

The boat we were tied up to has maching damaged along side of their gunwale. Thier TV became dislodged and landed on to the floor, damaging it. They had an unopend large bottle of Merlo wine that smashed opened unto new beige carpets, permantly staining them.

In all the years of boating, no one in our raft has ever been hit with a wake the size of what you and your boat created.

Just want to thank you for your concern for the safety and well being of fellow boaters.

Thank you!

Ouch, that sucks. I would file a complaint and attemot to put in a legal claim against the insurance of the boat that caused the damaging wake. I cannot find a NH law that says one is responsible for the the damage caused by their wake, but it's worth a shot.

Just out of curiosity, were there any boating laws broken?

This is the REAL problem on Winnie. Its is not speed, and we all know that. Its the lack of common sense. 6 foot wakes and lack of common sense. I'm sure he has the attitude of ( as long as I'm not inconvienced, everything is fine ). Sorry to hear about the damage to your boat, yes it would suck! Did you by chance get his Bow numbers?

The law of unintended consequences and the unwritten law of common courtesy.

I've seen this happean multiple times this year, these people don't pay attention or they just don't care. When ever we approch a cove or where ever my wake would cause a problem I'm off the gas well before I enter the area, its just common sense and courtesy. Not saying I'm perfect but C'mon.

According to NH Department of Safety; The operator/owner of the boat is responsible for damage caused by his/her wake. (it was on the the Boat-Ed test)

Now proving it is responsible for the wake, that might be the hard part.


Try this: http://tinyurl.com/2vvzc9b

Amount of damage?
 

Chunt: Don't forget that you have a duty to report the accident under the provisions of RSA 270:1-a if damage is over $2000 or any injuries.

Certainly your damage could push that threshold and the loss of a TV and rug damage alone would be some expense for your friends as well.

Good luck in getting justice.

In the US Coast Guard Aux class I took way back when it was taught that you are responsible for your wake and the damage it may cause all the way to shore.

I would consult with your insurance company as they would likely advise you if they would like to recover the cost of repairs from the owners.

Please let us know how you make out.

I also agree with DMax. It is common courtesy to slow before before entering an anchorage(area with anchored boats) especially one with rafted boats.

My boat was damaged rafting back there a few years ago. It's the reason I don't raft much anymore. You really need huge fenders and a good match up with your neighbors boat to raft in those wakes.

Unfortunately many boaters don't understand wakes. I've seen people slow from reasonable speed to max wake speed in the mistaken desire to help. I Also see a lot of people who just don't get it, riding around with their bows stuck in the air.

You can chase down the offender and try to extract money from him or his insurance company but I will be difficult. He will deny he made the wake. He will say you should not of been rafting in traffic.

This is terrible... Very sorry to hear of the damage, but in one respect I wanted to thank you for posting. The more times we hear of incidents like this the more people will be made aware of their actions.

I also had this happen to me one year in Braun Bay. It doesn't sound as if my situation was as damaging but still a cruiser came into the bay and didn't slow until 150 feet away from the rafters. While he may have been observing the safe passage law, he didn't take into consideration the monsterous wake that followed up behind him tossing all the boats around. The boat rafted off my party boat lifted up and the fender hit the side of the party boat with such force it dented in the side of the aluminum siding.

An area where I think they should reconsider extending the NWZ is when you come through Long Island Bridge. If you come in from the Broads by Trexlers on a summer weekend there are always a ton of boats rafted to the right of the bridge as you pass under. As a child I remember that there was a NWZ out to the red marker about 500 ft pass the bridge. Now people take off 150 ft out of the bridge causing some rather large wakes for the people rafting. I always try to make sure I wait until the red marker if not further depending on how crowded it is, to make sure I don't throw a wake into the rafters. Just common courtesey in my opinion.

I somewhat agree, although an idea that has been floated on this forum may be the perfect solution to this area. This area is only of concern during the summer months when folks are rafting and swimming in that area, rest of the year it's usually empty, and it's probably not very crowded during the week. I've also seen some folks that decide to drop a hook fairly close to the bridge which in and of itself may be legal but asking for it considering that's a pretty busy area for boat traffic. Anyways I digress...this may be the perfect candidate for a weekend only NWZ from Memorial Day through Labor day. Of course this would cause some level of confusion and would be interesting to enforce, but don't know till you try. I'd really hate to see a permanent NWZ there since this is not usually a problem 75% of the year.

As you said though common sense should come into play and any operator should be courteous enough to get well beyond any area where rafters and day anchored boats are parked as to not kick up a huge wake. If only common sense and courtesy was in greater supply there would be no need to even consider a NWZ there in the first place.

I just fear that now NWZ's are becoming a perceived solution for everything. They certainly have merit in some locations, but I'd hate to see every spot where navigation may get a little tight or wakes could be a potential problem will become a NWZ in the old monkey see monkey do fashion.

That would be funny if there wasn't so much truth to it :rolleye2:

Another option
 

Call the MP and report the boat next time. I've been in that area before with those same people parked in front of us. From my observation I'd be willing to bet if they got pulled over by the MP there might be someone getting bagged for BWI.
They always tend to be a loud partying group and I believe they are out of Mountain View.
As for the comment by Non voting tax payer, spoken like a true out of starter.
Which is why we love to take your $ and see you leave.

same thing
 

Yesterday (as well as many other days) we anchored at the sand bar near the entrance to West Alton Marina. I am always amazed at the number of boats that wait to the very last second to power down at the entrance to that channel. I mean, they can easily see a dozen or so boats anchored right along the front of the sand bar, and yet blow right by them, with no regard for the wake they are creating. When they enter the channel, I'll often waive and say "hey, thanks alot pal" but many times the idiots think we are just waiving to them, and return the waive.

You are using too many fingers when you wave :D

Earlier this year, in the same area, a large cruiser (around 35') passed us at max. wake speed. It was a narrow area and there was no way to avoid his wake. Frankly I was dumfounded that another boater would be so callous. We were in a 25' Cobalt and had we been in anything smaller, he'd have sunk us. I didn't get the name on the boat.

Wakey wakey...
 

Seems that some folks trade common courtsey for money on this lake. I guess it's a rare occasion when the two coexist.

Just sayin.....

GB

Gravy boat--

I have to disagree.... they probably "don't " have any money
( & wish they had, or ACT like they do)

My experiences are just the reverse..... Alot of people with $$$
( & you couldn't guess who they are ) are the most considerate , gracious, & caring & generous people...

just saying......

Let's not group everyone rich or poor in any one category. For heaven sake this is one boat that did a stupid thing and caused a big wake and accidental damage to someone else's boat. It's not like we have the "crips" and "bloods" having turf / water wars on Winni!

Dan

Yeah the minute something like this happens, I will be putting my place up for sale faster than I could read the news headline

Belmont Resident - What's your problem?
 

Belmont Resident - I only questioned whether any boating laws had been broken in response to Dave R saying they should file a complaint. Don't read negativity into every post which is made on this forum.
Just because I can't vote where my second house is doesn't mean I live out of state.

It's them or us
 

Correct ! We have those fire dancing people on Cow I shooting hotdogs and them we have the rest of us civilized people. But soon, very soon, they'll get their dogs returned with a relish ! Errr, I mean spuds. ;)

Also
 

Due to the speed limit many are trading up to the big cruisers and ditching their performance boats.
Could be a sign of things to come on the lake.
I saw 2 great big and what looked to be brandy new carvers cruising past Shep Browns on their way towards Center Harbor today.
These boats at any speed would and were leaving huge wakes.

maybe you need too learn to tie your boat up to the dock.

Regals
 

I think they were Regals, I saw them at the CH town docks around 1PM. They looked like twins to each other and were pretty sharp looking.

I really think everyone should just shut up and let things be. You chased away the speed boat, now everyone has something wrong with the big boats on the lake. When really the speed boats did nothing wrong. If it was the noise on the lake you didn’t like then don’t move here. Kind of like buying a house in the weirs if you don’t like bike week. The real problem on the lake is the people that don’t know what they are doing. I have lived on the lake my whole life and we have had them all. Big boat, little boat, speed boat, wood boat. I don’t see anyone saying the wood boats must go because of the noise OR the mail boat because the wake is too much. Soon with all of you people that have nothing better to do then cry about all of your problems on the lake everyone will have to have the same size boat same color same number of people in it ect....

For the people that there boat got damaged that does suck! But next time you will tie up better or something. Just think, you had a bad day because of that. Now where ever the boat goes to get fixed has a good day.
:D

Kind of like buying a house next to a highway, getting a good price and then complaining to the state until they build a noise mitigation wall!

very nice
 

Just curious if telling everyone to "shut up" is a good way to introduce your point of view...me thinks, well, not so much...
I don't think the thread is about chasing away big boats at all...and I don't think the original poster (chunt) needs to "tie up better or something" as you say.
I think people need to operate theirs boats in a proper and respectful manner. Approaching a sand bar, with many boats anchor...well it's not rocket science. There is just no need to send everyone flying. It's selfish and very irresposible. Please don't suggest that what we should all do is acquiesce to the fools operating their boats this way, and "tie up better" (whatever that means).
And please don't tell me to "shut up". It's not very polite, and it is, after all, a public forum of discussion.

Part of the problem is, and I am not saying it is the case,
that people would rather have the government and regulators take up their single mind or minority point of view and let them run with it instead of people taking these small personsal matters into their own hands

Not saying all matters should be dealt with on their own accord, but stuff like this, the speed limit, the noise, all this bogus non ecominc issues should be left alone by the goverenment and let the people choose

Do not buy up here and then try to change things to the way you want it, which is what is being allowed to happen, rich, poor, speed boat, non power boat, all that.

But most importantly people must remember places evolve over time for the better and for the worst, and no one knows which way till it has already evolved again

YOu have the option to leave, not buy, accept it, or change with it. Again not saying this is the case for all problems and subjects. The one thing to take otu of this is this: Once the government steps in, for good or worse in your eyes, that becomes the law of the land and then there are no more alternatives, and that is tried and true no matter what side of an arguement you are on

People need to be considerate yes! and I tried to be, but that is not the case or others see what you are doing to not be considerate when you think you are, so you have to prepare yourself for that in all cases of life.

What's that saying S$*# happens, get over it, Yes it does suck that is happened, and yes it does suck that for some reason others try to press their veiws on others up here and it works sometimes, when all jsut need to sit back and just enjoy the area for what it is and let everyone enjoy it the way they want to, but with safety in mind

Instead of all these tests and rules there should be one test for everything in life and that should be nothing more than a COMMON SENSE TEST!
If you do not have common sense then in any aspect of life there will be problems
Take driving for example, are signs really needed, well not really if you have common sense and that is what is lacking

Can I get an AMEN!! Ok off the box now

[QUOTE=sa meredith;134554]Just curious if telling everyone to "shut up" is a good way to introduce your point of view...me thinks, well, not so much...
QUOTE]

I don't think he was meaning it literally but just making a strong point that people are complaining too much about things that have been part of the lake for all of its boating history. IMO

Sorry for the blog
 

For those that have boated for many years, decades perhaps, none of these stories are new to you. Perhaps the older folks on the board grew up enjoying the lake in the 60's, 70's, early (early) 80's. We had family and friends on the lake, and we had an older generation that showed us common sense and courtesy by example. There were still boneheads, huge cruiser wakes, some folks shaking their fists as 4' rollers crashed into their docks. Winni was a very busy place way back then, and it grew more congested during the ensuing years.

We did crafty things back then. Knowing full well what happens on summer weekends, we tried mooring whips, cross cradle lines, even Shore Stations when they appeared, all to alleviate the issues of constant weekend wakes. We learned not to work on the boat at the dock on Saturday afternoons. We learned that Deep Vees were much better at cruising through the big weekend wakes. But rarely did it stop us from boating or enjoying the heck out of the lake. And hardly ever did we seek personal relationships with the NH Legislators, or form organizations to form lobbying groups.

People bombed around in their boats, big cruisers cruised, people paddled, rowed, or just went put put around their favorite areas. Even when younger, I probably wished there wasn't a single huge cruiser on the lake. But we learned to accept them, just as we accepted every boat, noisy, quiet, paddle powered or wind driven.

When older, more perspective was gained. But people that have been on the waters all their lives have totally different perspectives (mostly) than those that just started out as adults. While I accept all but the most arrogant and even dangerous boaters, I also realize many of those people I shake my head at probably have no clue (as someone else mentioned here). You'd think after awhile they'd catch on, given that they're bound to have been in your situation at one time or another. Surprisingly, many don't.

For instance. I've had the pleasure (:rolleye2:) of being anchored in my favorite spot while one happy group has been enjoying tubing. Now this is a spot where people come down from Canada, the bay, everywhere to enjoy shelter from the wind, and beautiful sandy beaches and shallow water. Often filled with many boats, ranging from small bowriders to 55' cruisers.

These happy folks typically start tubing from near the beach area, and pull the tube in between several boats. Not content to go headway speed, they always are going above 15 mph to make sure they have a decent wake. Mind you, at any given point in time, they have probably passed at least three dozen anchored boats :confused: This happened on four separate weekends before I finally realized this was not a very rational person. Bear in mind, we had been hit by plow wakes inside thirty feet, so our boat had rocked back and forth rather swiftly.

I had a little discussion with the captain of said boat once. We discussed boat wakes, danger of getting the prop tangled in anchor lines, all of these crazy laws we've had in place for a million years. I got a lesson in fun, kids tubing, minding my own business, and anchoring somewhere else. I'm not sure what the other gazillion boats thought of these guys. But one day, opportunity struck :) Hardly anyone was there on fine Saturday afternoon. But there they were, anchored with two lines about 50' from the beach. Perfect time I said to myself.

Trimmed down, port side to his bow, perhaps 50' away, I went looking for just that perfect spot to anchor :emb:

Yes, I did, and I did it more than once :rolleye2: I'm sorry, but it was great fun, and the look on his surprised face was absolutely priceless.

Guess what?

Same bonehead one Sunday afternoon this year, same thing. So now there's a really nice local cop looking for just the right moment to generate some revenue so he can fill his tank up more often.

We seem to be oversimplifying here.
We've heard it said on this forum that if you want to see the results of a country with minimal laws one can go to Somalia. And you can see what happens there when people take "matters into their own hands".
Our government in Concord is elected by the people. The people do choose.

Some people's idea of common sense can be at the far end of the bell curve. Someone may feel its OK to leave their stereo up all night...glad there are laws against disturbing the peace. We heard from Shreddy of how he likes all his toys loud (and from a few of his critics about how he ruins snowmobiling for everyone). And yes, we all do pay a price for a few (really) bad apples ...I'm not a terrorist but have to take off my shoes at the airport for example.

This is exactly what I am talking about, Jumping to extremes. Looking at Somalia, yeah you have to take into consideration the quality of life and also the quality of people you are dealing with before you jump to an extreme example of all day warfare because of corrupt lawless-ness. I would harbor a guess that people of the United States would not alllow themselves to fall into that type of lifestyle.

Now onto the people choosing, youa re correct in the fact that they choose but most ideas for politicans coem from their constiuates and they decide to ride that wave or not

Again jumping to extremes about people taking matters into thier own hands, does not mean going out there with a gun, knife, or anything else it SIMPLY means feel out the others involved and then react, not just simply go crying because someone spilled your milk, while not going over and shooting someone because they spilled your milk. It means making educated and sometimes calculated decisions on how to handle the situation infront of you instead of having someone else handle it for you

Life can be simple, and I have no problem taking my shoes off at the airport as well, safety - which falls under my common sense theory, is common sense

Ahoy there: motorboat!


While some locations around the lake do not appreciate large wakes, the Buoy 3 area definately wants to attract all the large wakes it can get! Bring them on, the big wakes, and send them rolling down toward the shore. As a kayaker, big wakes are big fun; maybe like surfing or something, and those wakes are appreciated especially now with the water temperature a toasty 76 degrees. Big wakes are great for kayaking, canoing, and swimming....so three cheers for big wakes. The more the better! If anyone wants to make Buoy 3 the Big Wake Capital.....that will be just fine.....and thanks in advance!:)

I believe that Thomas Jefferson had a brilliant thought which I think is noteworthy....

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.


What I find noteworthy here is that he references "liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others" which is a very important distinction to point out and something that has been lost in today's society. For lack of respect and consideration for our fellow citizens is at face value a violation of the rights of others no matter which side of any argument or action you may fall on. So as a result laws are created to maintain a civilized society and to curb certain behaviors as to preserve the ideal of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all.

No society can be civilized and lawless at the same time, however creating an over abundance of laws does not equate to a civilized utopia either. This is why we must be very careful in how societies problems are addressed when it comes to any kind of legislative action for if it goes to far results in a tyrannical oppressive government. Unfortunately today everyone is all to quick to enact laws re-actively instead of considering the effectiveness of such actions and to what extent it interferes with the overall freedoms of our society as a whole.

'nough said, well put Mr Jefferson, and excellent interpretation Maxum!

Rafting damage
 

CHUNT, I'm sorry you had damage to your boat and to the other boat. Sounds like the skipper of the wake maker is brainless as far as vessel operation is concerned. There is however, a way to prevent this kind of damage; DON'T RAFT!! It is a questionable practise and is not necessary. Simple dinghy over to the boat you wish to visit. Or lacking a dinghy, swim over. You'll most likely have a much nicer visit if you're not worried about damage.
One time I had sailed my Catalina 22 along with a fleet of other Catalina 22's to Santa Cruz Island in Southern California, where we anchored up for the night. The anchorage was super calm and about 15 boats rafted together for the night. My kids and I anchored by ourselves abour 100 yards away. About 6 AM, the wind came up to about 30 knots and tore the raft apart. What a mad scramble to break up the raft and go anchor by themselves.
It's nearly impossible to fender the boats correctly to avoid damage.
The morale of the story is: you never know what size wake will arrive at your boat and you had better be prepared for it's arrival.

Sailboats Rafting
 

Speaking of sailboats rafting... Sailboats have an Additional Factor to consider when rafting, and that is The MASTS. When two or more sailboats raft, and a big wake comes by, one boat will roll to starboard and another will roll to port and the masts will crash into each other with sometimes spectacular results.

The solution ..AGAIN.. is to employ that Often Overlooked practice called: Seamanship.

Raft the sailboats with their masts "staggered" fore and aft by a few feet so when the boats roll, the masts will Pass each other instead of colliding. :look: NB

:D Glad I could leave an impact

I think Maxum, along with a little help from Mr. Jefferson, has put forth the basis of the "problem" with these bonehead people today. "lack of respect and consideration for our fellow citizens" I would say is 50% of the problem. Values like that were taught to me by my partents as part of my upbrining. Where were these peoples parents when it was time to instill those values into thier children? Or did they think it was someone elses resposibility - like the schools? That is the other 50% of the problem.

Some people needed a good dop slap upside the head a long time ago - but never got one.

I think they passed a law making it illegal to slap your kids upside the head a few years back...

TOTALLY. And your Child will call 911 and you will be arrested and put in jail....and they will no longer have a Parent. :D

NB

Damn those bureaucrats!

yes... it's been a steady downward spiral ever since...

W.w.b.c.s.
 

And it was only 1983 when Bill Cosby said ...

My father established our relationship when I was seven years old. He looked at me and said, "You know, I brought you in this world, and I can take you out. And it don't make no difference to me, I'll make another one look just like you."

Very good M n M

We had a nice encounter today.

Coming out of the channel from under the Governors Island bridge, just where the lake starts to open up. We're heading for the weirs channel.

A boat is coming from my left, I'm in his danger zone and he is as give-way as it gets. I'm watching him just cruising along towards us with seemingly no intention of yielding. As near as I can tell, he's going to cross maybe 80 feet in front of us. No big deal, IMO, it's not 150', but I'm not really concerned about it. He comes across my bow maybe 60' away, but plenty of clearance at the speeds we were going. But the beauty of it all was when he was 10' past us he stops abruptly is and is motioning to me something with his hands indicating distance. Apparently he is upset for some reason that he crossed to close to me.

Looked like about 25 or 26' cruiser named "Cool Breeze", IIRC.

One GOOD Apple Appears in Winter Harbor!
 

1) Yesterday, with one mile yet to go to a popular rafting location, a large cruiser slowed to about headway speed upon entering Winter Harbor. :) I'd like to thank the Captain on behalf of all Winter Harbor residents and rafters. :coolsm:

:confused: Unfortunately, I couldn't read the second part of the boat's name. The first part was "Happy..." :look:

2) In the space of a few seconds off a Tuftonboro red marker, a "BayR" boat sped within 40' of me...then a Jet-Ski squeezed between me and the marker—with just 20' to spare! He waved—but how could I (in good conscience) return the wave? :confused:

[QUOTE]C'mon, get over it! (Somebody said) :rolleye2:

Life is good spotted Sat at 1pm blasting through the NWZ at Eagle/Govenors at 15 knots leaving 3-4 footers while the other boats in the NWZ putted along. I saw it was a a 32' Carver and sure enuff on the transom was "Life is Good"

It must be his first boat

Great
 

What a perfect size boat to cut your teeth on!:rolleye1:

Excuses excuses
 

The speed limit has had nil effect on the 15000 pound plus summer cabins that now churn up the lake every weekend.. Can we please all try and be realistic about whats happening out there.. Weight limit, horsepower limit is needed !!!!!

I guess for some, it is time for the next step in the "grand plan" to add further boating restrictions to the lake. We all knew that restricting cruisers would be the next step and this whole discussion thread is a well planned start to the next campaign, isn't it? :rolleye2:

R2B

This is not needed......... So basically you are advocating that we ban the Mount, the Sophie C, Doris E., the Mini mount, the Winni-bell, all the cabin cruisers where people live on, etc, because a "few" captains who are obviously uneducated to boating or are plain reckless with their wakes are on the lake.???

Lets not group what could be hundreds of boats into one catagory because of one or two bad apples.

We have all been discussing that there are restrictions in place to provide a safe enviorment on the lake. There are laws that hold you responsible for your wake.

From the sound of it this particular Captain is leading the bonehead squad so I don't think we need to be jumping up and down calling for further restrictions on the lake.

(no directed at you HUH) but how long did that take? I predicted it over 2 years back. Pass the law that shall not be discussed, nothing will change (and hasn't based on all the problems and amount of accidents), and then we will have others asking for HP and weight limits.

How many restrictions have to be passed before people realize it isn't that a new law is needed... It is that we need people with common sense. You can pass millions of laws and this will not teach someone how to boat in a courteous manner. You can not legislate common sense! period.

Here is the answer to the issue. We all know the boat's name, apparently it is easy to spot. How about writing the bow number down, send a private message to the original poster, he can then give it to the MP. Perhaps the MP will call and explain they have had numerous complaints which may make this bonehead captain think about what he is doing next time out. Problem solved.

Ok..... I am done ranting now.

When will people realize that you are never going to be able to roll-back the clock with more and more regulations?

A *proper* boater education and certification course would do 10x more to fix the problems of boating on Winnipesaukee than all the regulations and new laws in the world.

IMO, a big part of the problem is that people with no business operating a boat, and more money than brains feel "safe" on the lake because it's inland and relatively small (compared to most other bodies of navigable water, not necessarily surrounding lakes).

There should be no such thing as a try-as-many-times-as-you-like temporary boating certificate. The NHMP should concentrate its resources on actual safety infractions, and the fines should be a loss of operating privileges for 2 weeks after a 2nd infraction (see how many people want to risk plowing through a NWZ or failing to recognize right-of-way when the penalty is basically having your usable boating season cut by 10%).

"Life is Good"
 

I think there is a line here that this thread has crossed. I am not saying that what this vessel did is correct but I am saying that a few questions are in order before this individual is convicted and now his name, business and home address have been revealed.

1) Did this incident actually happen or was it just chunt's version of the story?

2) What is Life is Good's side of the story?

3) Were there any coberating witnesses?

4) When did this forum become JUDGE AND JURY?

This individuals home life and business could be permanently affected because of personal information that was posted to this thread and I think it is a blatent misuse of public information. Let chunt find the info if he wants to persue this legally.

Remember there have been no facts entered into this thread only here say, how do we know that chunt has a vendetta against this individual for some other reason we dont know about.

What happen to "innocent until proven quilty".:confused:


Again I am not saying that this didnt happen, but that questions should be asked and this is not the forum to reveal personal info and accuse a party before the facts have been investigated.

First off, I think you are right to ask these questions. Chunt the originator of this thread has not been back since posting it. That does make the mind wonder.

This issue is a hot button for me because I try and be a courteous boater and do notice when others are not.

I also like that the issue has come to light because it may make others think a bit more about being mindful of there actions while out on the water, big boat or not. It may also make others aware that we are not annonomous out there and someone may hold us accountable for the results of our lack of common courtesy which could possibly cause monetary damage or worse physical harm.

From what I recall there were two boats that collided as a result of the wake in question so likely there would be a witness, but maybe none other than directly involved.

After reading the addition information from a "life is good" sighting in the NWZ at GI/Eagle Island, it apprears that the operator of this vessel could use a little enlightenment in regards to how they are operating it. Just a guess.

I wish chunt would come back and let us know what if anything they plan to do about what occured.

There may be more than one "Life is Good". Many boats this size are not documented with the USCG.

According to BoatUS, "Life is Good" was the seventh most popular boat name in 2006.

Hi Joey;

You are correct and I have deleted my post. Public info or not it was not up to me to do the fact finding. I stand completely corrected.

Thank you for taking the time to remind me!

I respectfully request that anyone who copied me in their post to please delete it.


Dan

That is an extremely honest admirable thing for you to do I have gained much respect for you today.:)

I have agreed with a lot of your posts in the past. This one, not so much.

Putting the whole TLTCBM aside….

Boat size / HP Limit.

If a person is operating their vessel in accordance with the law, what is the difference between a 35ft cruiser and 24ft bow rider?

If a boat is doing 45 or less during the day, what difference would it make if the boat was 100 hp or 1000 hp?

It all comes back to the same thing; If one follows the laws and rules of the waterways, no additional laws are needed.

Thanks to all who have posted positive replies. I started this thread to educate the Captain of “ Life is Good” on the damaging effects of wakes not as a vendetta to the owner.

Proving who owns the wake is impossible, without a video camera. In this case, Captain of “Life is Good” pulled up his anchor and proceeded to the north west point of Mark and Timber. It was the only boat that was moving and producing a wake. We had three boats in our raft with a total of thirteen people that witnessed and participated in the carnival ride. “Joey2665” How many witnesses / victims does it take to break the threshold of hearsay?

On Saturday, 7/31, we were once again blessed by the Captain of “Life is Good”. We were on the other side of Timber, by the rope swing, when the Captain of “Life is Good” untied from his raft, slowly pulled away until he got in front of our raft. We (12 of us) were all on the bows of our boats yelling and screaming for him to slow down. We could not believe it was the same boat again, as he powered up towards Eagle Is. Fortunately our bows were head on into the wakes, not the side of our boats.

Once again I would like to thank everyone for their positive posts. I do not believe that limiting the size of boats, horsepower or speed limits has anything to do with what happened. The solution is education. Thanks.

witness to chunt's dilema
 

I can vouch for chunts alligations on the captain of Life is good. I was there on both occasions and can tell you the guy just does not seem to have a clue on boat edicate.

Nah the solution is a torpedo!

Hull numbers will be tough to find on a documented vessel... ;) Fortunately, the name on the transom might be easy to record.

OK when the data show that the PWC is responsible for an overwhelming number of accidents, tickets and reckless operation, this I got first hand from a MP officer. Arguably the smallest motorized craft on the lake.

Geeze listen to yourself, limit size, horsepower, speed limits? And to what end would make YOU happy? Oh never mind I can see where this is going, just restrict access and all will be well right? How many times must it be said we have laws on the books to deal with the very situation that Chunt described. If they are not able to enforce those what makes you think more laws and restrictions will fix anything? Must be another Harvard graduate. Far more enlightened than the rest of us HUH? (no pun intended)

ARRRRGGHHH!!! It's like beating your head on a brick wall.

The current MOON is making people Crazy.

The lack of SEAMANSHIP my friends.....on both sides ..is the problem here.. So the "Driver" of the big boat made a big wake. The owners of the boats rafted failed to protect themselves adiquitly......Obviously. An absence of Seamanship.

The Captain of a Ship.....and I use the term Captain loosely here, is responsible for the safety of his vessel.....regardless of what nature or anyone else hands him. :rolleye1: NB

End of Rant.

Oh great thanks VtSteve, wanna buy my bowrider now? :rolleye2:

As I said in my respose, "where the coberating witnesses" and now it seems there are which is great, but the bottom line it take it up with MP I still beleive this is not the forum to release personal and business information.

If Life is Good is at fault I am not protecting him in any way, I certain would not want to be rafting as he went by but again it should be taken up with the proper authorities especially since you have other witnesses.

actions
 

When these and other capt. boneheads are within the 150' or are putting out a large wake wouldn't it be nice to have a paint ball gun with bright red paint :eek: or perhaps a Navy surplus torepedo.

It is a 35 ft CARVER
 

:

I saw him fueling up and getting a pump out at the Weir's just before 1:00 on Sat. I was going to yell out to him that he should visit this web site and view his 15 minutes of fame. (Wait , did I say fame or shame ?) :D Guessing he must have come from Spinniker to be fueling up at the Weirs.
Betting he is probably a descent guy just a tad clueless. :rolleye2:

NOT Advocating HP-Limits...
 

Not quite.

As Woodsy pointed out a couple of years ago, a boat will increase its wake while either accelerating or decelerating. The ability to make a monster wake increases with horsepower—all other things being equal.

Not only that, but an especially dangerous wake can be produced when accelerating—and at the same time—turning! :eek:

Even excluding all that, the difference between 100 and 1000-HP puts the weight towards the transom: This is a weight that must be overcome—indicated by a "bow-high" attitude of the boat while accelerating—somewhat less-so, while decelerating.

The same effect can be duplicated by placing all movable weight aft. (Fuel, gear, and passengers). "Wake-surfers" use this ski-boat practice to produce their huge wakes.

To prove it, just loan me it for just one weekend, and I can really churn things up!

In the absense of any proven damage, I'd be doing it legally! :eek2:

APS - good points but as the vessel gets bigger different options in the construction and power will effect the resulting wakes.

If the boat has mid-engines they do not come out of the "hole" the same as many cruisers that have V-drives and may not make the same monster wake. V-drives have the engines and transmission near the transom as you pointed out and may have significant bow rise and monster wake at certain speeds. I know of several carvers that are underpowered (my opinion)for their displacement and never get to an efficient cruising attitude. Not enough horsepower may be more damaging than a vessel that has enough horespower to get quickly on plain and minimize the wake.

Good point NG. Carvers and Silvertons really do produce some pretty large wakes, seemingly at any speed :laugh:

I've witnessed some Four Winns and Sea Ray cruisers doing in the 25 - 35 mph range that had pretty small wakes, nicely operating on plane. The plowers really churn it up, as do trawlers and semi/full displacement hulls.

And I have a little 22' Eastern lobster with a little 115 H.P. outboard that produces a wake at any speed that will rival any of the big cruisers. It has a flat bottom semi-displacement hull that just pushes water out of the way.

It's not the size of the boat or horsepower that determines wake size but the type of hull it has.

In large part, yes. I think APS was relating that HP needed to push longer, heavier boats is required. As stated, not necessarily. There are many small to mid-size cruisers that are underpowered to to the MFG wanting to meet a certain price point in the marketplace. I've seen a 260 Sea Ray with a 5.0 engine, same as my 22 footer. That boat pushes some water before struggle to get on plane, and stay there. Not to mention, he uses more fuel to do so than an adequately powered boat.

There's a 48' trawler (maybe longer) over here that is captained by a very nice guy. He usually goes no faster than 10 mph out of the harbor. When in open water, the wake is measured in stories, not feet :eek:

Seriously large wake. Piloted by a knowing captain.

Good point APS.

Displacement and weight are big factors when it comes to how large a wake a boat will generate. I wasn’t exactly clear, and my example was also exaggerated to make a point (100 -1000hp). That is my bad; let me see if I can explain my point little better.

While weight and displacement are factors, they are not the only factors. Many other variables can come into play and actually overcome weight and displacement.

A small block weighs about 1050 lbs (engine, transom shield and drive). A big block weighs in around 1260 lbs (engine, transom shield and drive). My point was the difference in HP/torque may help the heavier engine get on plain quicker and therefore shorten the time the boat is in transition (creating less of a wake).

I realize this is a simplistic way to look at this. There are many other factors involved here. My point is, just because a boat is large and has a big engine, doesn’t necessarily mean it generates big wakes.

So once again I am going to use extreme examples to prove my point. High horsepower, large heavy ships, small wakes. :D