[paintitredinHC]

Sometimes - I feel like contributing to this forum is a waste of effort. But the fact that this thread (in particular) was initiated by an association that has tangible regulatory influence beyond the idle consternations of us, the anonymous keyboard jockeys; I feel I am obligated to present an alternative perspective, if for no other reason than to balance the input.

That said, I don't think any of us are all that different from each other in terms of concern for the well being of the lake. I am not under the false pretense that the activities that I enjoy have no impact. In fact, I have acknowledged before that wake activity does have a negative impact to the lake and homeowners property. And, it would stand to reason that a larger wake generated by a wake boat would exacerbate the problem. However, please consider that there are actions that can be taken to mitigate the problem without prohibitive regulation. Furthermore, broad reaching regulations are often an over-reaction to a far more nuanced issue - as Maxum pointed out. If I can offer some insight on those nuances, then, when (not if) regulations are enacted, they are based on informed input.
There have been a lot of great points made and I'd like to address as many of them as I can.

Big Guy - you bring up the most salient point - We would all be much better off if we were more considerate of others. I'm no exception, and I can always be better. I will make a concerted effort to do so, and a sincerely hope that others do as well.... Although, I think you grossly under-estimate the skill set needed to make money on a professional circuit. 90 degrees from the side of the boat is not hard - particularly on a slalom ski. Now, going ‘around the world’ (360 degrees) is impressive, and I've only achieved that once. A story for another time, perhaps.

PIG - I blame the New Hampshire state school I attended.

FlyingScot - I know you're not a wakeboarder or waterskier - that much is clear. For every nuance I bring up, you turn it into Pandora’s Box with uniformed statements. That's fine though, I can take the time to elaborate because these are the details that matter. Just because a skier 'can' ski directly behind the boat, certainly does not mean that they do. A driver should assume that their skier will need to remain at a legal distance at all times and should budget maximum required space when traveling parallel to shore. I try to subscribe to this approach when I am towing someone, and others should be taught this as well. Not only is it the legal thing to do, but it is the morally just thing to do. As for your (and ITD's) second point, a quarter of a mile (1,320 feet) is roughly the width of the channel between Long Island an Sandy Island. Next time you venture through there, get back to me and let me know if you were slightly exaggerating. In any event, there are multiple factors that could influence your estimate, some of which were very aptly supplied by DPatenaude.

DPatenaude - Very informative article indeed. Thanks for bringing fact to the discussion. There are a few things I want to address here.

1. Pay particularly close attention to the image of the wakes at different speed. Per the article, a boat towing a water skier (~32 mph) is at planning speed and generates a wave that is 25 cm high. Because I assume a pedantic question from Pete is inevitable - this is probably an average, and may be slightly more or slightly less depending on the boat, how many people are in it, which way the wind is blowing and whether or not I had lunch. Now the article is clear that this measurement is taken at the point at which the wake is made off the stern of the boat and not when it reaches shore. Without further details on how much a wake of this size dissipates within conservative 150 feet, it is hard to say how much impact it will have. But let's venture to guess that it is halved (BTW there are so many factors that determine wave dissipation rates and it is way too intense to go into here… i.e. wind, other waves, bottom depth, elevation, etc.) Per the article, 12.5 cm is insignificant impact to the shore. Now, this is for skiing not wakeboarding or wake surfing. Which begs the question, should we consider different regulations for different sports? Perhaps?

2. Wakeboarding wakes are half a meter or more (50cm) at 23mph (still planning speed). Assuming again 150 feet from shore halves the wave size, we work our way down to 4 times as destructive as no wake. Maybe for wakeboarding you need to be 300 feet from shore for the wake to dissipate to a reasonable size? I'm not a scientist, but assuming a linear calculation, the same limited impact as skiing noted above could be achieved. This regulation is in line with the Safe Quiet Boating Association in the Muskoka Lakes mentioned in the article. Again, just to CYA (or CMA) we need someone more qualified than my back of the napkin calculations to verify, but I'm just doing this to illustrate the variables that need to be considered.

3. Wakesurfing is an entirely different beast altogether. Not to put a too fine point on it, but I heard a joke recently. What's the difference between you and a professional Wakesurfer?... Two weeks of practice. And I agree, why are they even blasting terrible music - kids these days... I digress. Wakesurfing is performed at roughly 11.5mph, which is classified as 'Transition Speed' according to the article. This creates the largest and most damaging waves. No calculations for the size of these waves are detailed in the article, but suffice to say, I am fairly confident that these are the waves that have drawn your collectively ire. I wholeheartedly agree that this activity should be performed in the broads, if at all on the lake. Hell, you can outlaw it and that's fine by me. That said, you're going to have a tough go of that because as Maxum pointed out, it's becoming VERY popular. Mostly because anybody with a pulse and 150k to burn on a Wakesurfing boat can do it.

Well, I hope this was at least somewhat informative. I think I'll start my weekend now...