No wake - lake wide??

[Rinkerfam]

By Memorial Day weekend 2005, I had already been on my boat three times. As I post this reply, I have not yet seen my boat this season. If the lake level does not improve by this weekend, even though it will cause me great mental anguish, my boating will be limited to "headway speed" if I go out at all. Preservation of the lake as well as a consideration for those who live on her shores are the underlying motivation for me.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by jrc

{snip}
I'm sorry, but in our society we are governed by laws. My actions were acceptable because they were legal and I did no damage. I was at least 500 feet from shore before I made a wake. How big is my wake at 500 feet? Could you even measure it's effect versus the damage caused by flooding and wind driven waves.
{snip}

While I don't entirely disagree that we as waterfront-ers and dock-ers should take the primary responsibility for proactively limiting the damage due to unusual weather / flooding, I don't think that means you should do whatever you want. I don't mean this in a strictly legal sense but rather in a common courtesy sense. A parallel might be a case of conflicting lawn parties. You might have one every weekend and play the music you like at or under the legal limit. I might have one special occasion (say a wedding) where I'd like to not hear your music that day. Knowing this is a unusual and not frequent occasion I would hope that you'd respect my wish and hold off for that short time, not because you are legally reguired to but rather because it's the courteous thing to do.

As to the damage caused by wakes on docks ... it's going to depend on the dock and wake size obviously. I saw a number of boats on plane up and down Alton Bay this weekend, some leaving bigger wakes than others. The wind today did more damage (to 2 docks up and down from ours) than those wakes did. Put more boats out there and have the wakes combine (think next weekend) and it might have been a different story. While I'd like to be able to authoritatively tell you at what distance your wake will have diminished to some inconsequential size, I can't. I can say I've watched the wakes come from boats across the bay (1000+ ft away) and they look to be the same size as 100 ft away. It wouldn't surprise me if it took more than a mile to reduce a wake to "small". It's on my "got nuthin better to do list" to measure some day.

As to a mandatory lake wide NWZ - now that the fishing derby has passed I'll guess it'll happen. The authorities need to implement it now and get the word out if they want any meaningful compliance come next weekend, when it'll be needed (assuming we now can't get the lake down 6+"). I talked to 2 neighbors, both with boats and neither had heard of the voluntary NWS restriction this weekend. Neither would I, had it not been for the forum.

[Grant]

You can mandate no-wake zones and speed limits, but not common sense.

[Bear Islander]

You are correct Grant.

And if everybody had common sense, and used it, we wouldn't need so many laws.

[Woodsy]

Woodsy's Prediction for the Weekend...

Sometime during the day friday, a mandatory NWZ will be implemented. This will be implemented on friday so as to minimize the impact to local businesses from people cancelling thier weekend plans... gotta love that 24hr cancellation rule all the hotels/motels have.

At the risk of getting lynched...

As far this debate goes, it is a silly p*ss*ng contest between the haves (waterfront property owners) and the have nots (tourists & non property owning boaters). Niether interest trumps the other. If the lake wide NWZ was voluntary, then jrc did nothing wrong. He is under no legal obligation at all to limit his activities because a bunch of property owners didn't build thier docks properly. In fact, IF (thats a big IF) his wake damaged a dock, I don't think the dock owner would have ANY legal recourse. Although he is responsible for the damage his wake causes, I doubt a court would find him responsible for damaging a dock that was built below the high water mark, essentially an making it an improperly built dock.

Shoreline Erosion is an issue to be sure, and boat wakes don't help. But erosion is a natural process. If the NH DES was concerned about shoreline erosion they too would have asked for a lake-wide NWZ. I suspect we will hear from them before the weekend.

Alot of you speak about common sense. Its really kind of funny because it is strictly from your point of view, most vocal are the waterfront property owners. Just because the lake is 13" high, you expect everyone to know enough to slow down. Most people don't know how high the lake is. A small blurb in the local newspaper does not an informed public make. Unlike 1998, this was not a well covered media event. You cannot expect someone to behave in a different manner if they are not informed.

As an informed individual, I have left my boat tied to the dock.

Woodsy

[KonaChick]

It is YOUR responsibility as a boat owner to know the conditions of the body of water you are boating on. With such easy access to the internet and so many different publications it's not difficult to find out.

[Island Lover]

Hi Woodsy

Since there is a guy on the lake with a $700,000.00 Nor-Tec boat I'm not sure the boaters are really the "have nots". Plus there are quite a few performance boats and Carvers that cost more than waterfront property.

There a many families that have a small cabin on the water because 75 years ago grandfather paid $200 for a lot and built it on weekends. Some are blue collar folk that have a problem coming up with the taxes every year. They live in fear that they will have to sell the family heirloom if property values get to crazy.

Some cabins are owned by multiple families, a cabin near me has four owners that timeshare.

Your have and have not theory doesn't hold water.

[Woodsy]

Island Lover...

You missed my point. This is about what the waterfront property owners want vs what is best for the general public. I am just pointing out that there is more than one point of view on this issue.

Waterfront property owners are approaching this problem from your point of view, essentially your wallet. You don't want the additional cost of repairing your dock. I don't blame you. However, had the dock been built to height greater than the high water mark, you wouldn't have this problem. 13" inches above full lake does not make this a flood of epic proportions.

As I have stated before there are many competing interests, waterfront property owners, businesses, public access and use etc. It is very difficult to balance these competing interests. In the end no one is truly happy with the compromises the politicians will come up with.

I understand that some struggle to make the tax payments. Lake Winnipesaukee property values have skyrocketed, driven by other folks who can afford to pay the taxes. I wish I had the luxury of being in a position that allowed me to afford both a primary residence and a waterfront vacation residence. Sadly I do not...

BTW, The $700K Nortech owner has a nice property on the water... He is a "Have".

An article on WMUR... http://www.wmur.com/news/9260614/detail.html

Woodsy

[Dave R]

I tend to agree with Woodsy on this one. One should consider nature a bit more when contructing a dock or residence. Leaving a dock in for the Winter (and sustaining unknown damage) and then being unable to tend to it during an accurately forecasted heavy rain spell, to me, is a pretty irresponsible thing to do. That dock could very well become the debris we all hate to see floating around in the lake. Frankly, I'd rather see beer cans, given the choice; at least they won't sink a boat or rip off a lower unit and make a big oily mess.

That said, I'm keeping my boat out of Winnipesaukee until the NWZ request is lifted. Just cuz I can legally make waves does not mean I will... I do feel empathy for those who did not plan well and hope the damage you sustain is minimal.

[KonaChick]

Reading some of the replies as to why there shouldn't be a NWZ lakewide reminds me of my teenage son and how he argues about being responsible. He always has some spin on it as to why his irresponsible actions are okay. What I suggest property owners do this weekend is make sure your video cameras are all charged up and get out there and start filming! As the law states you are responsible for your wake and any damage it causes. Get it on film and if someone's wake causes damage to your property record it and get the tape to Marine Patrol.

[Orion]

You guys are missing the point. The docks are not the main concern. When the water submerged them, those that were vulnerable were generally damaged at that point as the decking floated off. While there may still be some docks that could sustain further damage due to wave action, those would likely be far and few between. On the other hand, nearly the entire shoreline has some soil areas that are now under water. The wave action is deteriorating those areas, damaging the erosion control plant life and undermining waterfront tree root systems. It is also causing siltation as the sediments are washed into the lake and creating areas for weed beds to grow. I won't even mention formerly fertilized grass areas that are now awash.

[Woodsy]

Just to be clear,

I am not arguing for or against a lake-wide NWZ. I am just pointing out that there are competing interests at work.

I respected the voluntary NWZ and kept my boat at the dock this past weekend.

Woodsy

[mcdude]

Channel 5 (Boston) just did a short blurb about Winni and the lake level. They interviewed some guy from DES who stated that at this rate it would be mid-June before the lake level was back to "normal".

[HotDog]

Originally Posted by mcdude

Channel 5 (Boston) just did a short blurb about Winni and the lake level. They interviewed some guy from DES who stated that at this rate it would be mid-June before the lake level was back to "normal".

yeah new 9 WMUR also had that guy and a NH marine patrol come up and ask everone to go headway speed (not mandatory) this weekend. it also can be found @ www.wmur.com

[Paugus Bay Resident]

WMUR as well, here's the link http://www.wmur.com/news/9260614/detail.html

[Aquadeziac]

Lets see. If jrc is out in a fancy restaurant and I walk up near him and fart in close proximity to his $40 NY Steak, I am doing nothing illegal. But I am being inconsiderate....among other things. How did you say you like your steak, jrc?

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Aquadeziac

Lets see. If jrc is out in a fancy restaurant and I walk up near him and fart in close proximity to his $40 NY Steak, I am doing nothing illegal. But I am being inconsiderate....among other things. How did you say you like your steak, jrc?

Well that's a cute story, but not really a good analogy. If you read my posts, you will see that I made an effort, even though I had no legal obligation to do so. You may think I didn't make enough of an effort and you're entitled to that opinion. In your fart story you're trying to ruin my meal. If you accidentally fart near me, well those things happen.

Just so you know where I coming from, I've paid my dues. I owned a condo for years, right on the broads. I paid the fees every year to fix the dock damage. I had my boat bent and broken against the docks by waves and wakes. I've been on the bow of my boat hanging on to a mooring ball with all my strength as boats blasted by 20 feet away. I've out been in the dingy, looking through the crests. This is just the cost of being on the lake. When 3 foot waves were crashing on our dock, and boats were putting huge wakes on top of that, they never shut the lake down for us.

[jrc]

BTW I never said that I was against a lake wide no wake zone. There was no NWZ when I went out and I knew I was behaving. Do I trust my fellow humans to behave on Memorial Day weekend? I'm on the fence.

This really is a seperate question from my original point. Which was that lake front property owners can't expect me to give up my rights, just to protect them from something they should have planned for and mitigated against.

I'm giving up on this thread now. If you want to bash or fart, please do it by PM.

[Frdxplorer]

Alot of people have called JRC ignorant or something of the sort. Although I would love to see everyone tool around at headway, JRC seems to at least be rational. That is alot more than can be said for some morons. And it is hard to know the circumstances behind every driver.

Alot of people have eluded to common sense. One definition on Websters states as follows..."2 : sound and prudent but often unsophisticated judgment"
While perhaps not popular, I have to believe that JRC's behavior falls within this definition. Few, if any, of us are experts. We must all use our own judgement. I am in no position to judge JRC's determination that he was far enough from shore to cause little or no damage.

Again, I would encourage all boaters to obey the NWZ and play it safe.

[Belmont Resident]

To get respect you have to give respect. I've told my sons that you do not automatically warrant respect nor do you respect anyone just because they are an adult.
Many adults now a day do not deserve respect. Many do!
As with the issues on the lake, many property owners post here behind a screen name stating whatever comes to mind no matter who it hurts. You talk to many boaters and they will say right out they have no respect for property owners. Why because many, not all, act as if they are the sole owner of their domain and all the water in front of it. Sure you pay taxes on that property for the right to have that nice view, but that view comes at the cost of knowing that the property you value is also open to public use.
Sit back and read some of the postings and you wonder why boaters do not care about property damage. You push NWZ, speed limits and complain about things that they have no control over just because you want control over the water.
Maybe you had a bad experience with some boaters, there are some real winners out there. But not all of use are disrespectful, but when you lump us all into a category and judge us as inconsiderate just because of what we choose to drive, how fast we like to go or weather we like to tie up, raft and hang with friends then do not expect us to care when you desire our cooperation to keep your property from washing into the lake.
It goes both ways!!!!

[ApS]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

Reading some of the replies as to why there shouldn't be a NWZ lakewide reminds me of my teenage son and how he argues about being responsible. He always has some spin on it as to why his irresponsible actions are okay. What I suggest property owners do this weekend is make sure your video cameras are all charged up and get out there and start filming! As the law states you are responsible for your wake and any damage it causes. Get it on film and if someone's wake causes damage to your property record it and get the tape to Marine Patrol.

1) Although yours is the most sensible answer to a wake damage claim, much of the damage occurs in increments -- like a "death of a thousand cuts".

I've only heard of one successful wake damage claim, and that was in Maine, is taking ten years to prosecute, and involved a fatality.

2) As to "why his irresponsible actions are okay", we've seen that urge didn't get it last weekend.

We've also seen that "wakes disappear after 500 feet", and that urge really means "optional".

3) In prior years, there was complete compliance with a lake-wide NWZ — and I was especially pleased to see it. Since 1998's NWZ though, there are about 30,000 new boats/boaters in New Hampshire: Plus, we're witnessing a Marine Patrol that appears increasingly "enforcement-averse".

Is there mention of such high-water NWZs on the boater's test, and isn't education the only way to eliminate such behavior?

Solution:
Docks (and shorelines) need to be 6 inches higher.

[jkjoshuatree]

Why Can't We All Just Get Along!!!!!!!

[Mink Islander]

Please don't try to turn this into a class issue -- boaters vs. lake front property owners. It's not at all about that. The lake is very high. It's damaging property and the environment (shoreline). There's a large amount of debris in the water that also creates significant additional boating hazards. To ask the boating community (which actually includes the lakefront property owners too) to go headway speed for a couple of weeks once every 10 years or so when we have exceedingly high water isn't much to ask, frankly. The state is expressly asking the boating public to do that. They're not saying, "use your judgement to decide how fast to go" -- reason being everyone can debate ad nauseum what will or won't create damaging wakes, is a safe speed, etc.

The request is as simple as it is reasonable -- go headway speed everywhere on the lake until lake levels have returned to more seasonal levels.

[Seaplane Pilot]

It's really amazing to read some of these posts. The Town of Hooksett can impose a travel ban on the entire city during the floods, yet nobody blinks an eye. However, the suggestion to impose a mandatory no wake zone turns into a class war! You, Cap't Bonehead have every right to use the lake, just as everyone else does. However, you have no right whatsoever to cause damage to my property by your actions - in this case making waves that cause dock damage and further shoreline erosion. Therefore, I believe it is your responsibility to alter your actions to prevent damage to my property during these unusual conditions.

Here's the best way to resolve this: Call Marine Patrol 603-293-2037 and tell Director Barrett your position - either impose the mandatory no wake zone or don't impose it. A voluntary no wake zone is a joke and might as well not exist. My vote is for the mandatory no wake zone and Director Barrett has received the message.

[JTA]

I think we're under a voluntary no wake request. I arrived yesterday and putted the two miles out to my place on Cow Is. Every boat I've seen since has been up on plane except one which was plowing water thinking that that was "headway speed"? The resulting wake was greater than being on plane. No wake means SLOW .. NO WAKE!
There was a bass tournament years ago during a no wake period. The bassers who went by my place were going as fast as they could without going up on plane. As a result, they plowed a pretty good wake. Most bass boats leave hardly a ripple when they are up on a plane.
Anyway, my point is that a voluntary no wake request won't work on this coming weekend.

[SAMIAM]

Ouch !........Poor jrc is just getting HAMMERED.....and everyone has legitimate concerns about erosion,dock damage,loon nesting etc. The only point I bring up in his defense is the fact that wind generated waves are bigger than most boat wakes and I'm wondering what the point is of going headway speed while plowing through 2' swells.
At least I don't have to rake my beach this year........it's under water.

[KonaChick]

It will always be this way on certain issues reguarding the lake..the daytrippers/renters against the lakefront homeowners. Perhaps us as lakefront property owners have a more long term vision concerning what happens at the lake as compared to a live for the moment mentality. Just a thought.....

[Orion]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

...I'm wondering what the point is of going headway speed while plowing through 2' swells.

There actually is a reason to still go slow due to the compounding effect of the wind as it acts on boat-generated waves, creating much larger waves because it has a surface to push on. There is no question that the wind is doing plenty of damage though. Too bad.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Orion

There actually is a reason to still go slow due to the compounding effect of the wind as it acts on boat-generated waves, creating much larger waves because it has a surface to push on. There is no question that the wind is doing plenty of damage though. Too bad.

Brings up an interesting philosophical question. Is the shoreline erosion really "damage" or just change? Lets face it, the shoreline is constantly eroding and always will be. Even with no boat traffic at all, I bet this naturally occuring flood would cause more erosion than all the boat traffic of the last few years during "full lake" and lower periods.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Brings up an interesting philosophical question. Is the shoreline erosion really "damage" or just change? Lets face it, the shoreline is constantly eroding and always will be. Even with no boat traffic at all, I bet this naturally occuring flood would cause more erosion than all the boat traffic of the last few years during "full lake" and lower periods.

Let's delve a little deeper into this question. Had the dam never been built, would the lake still be flooded? I'm not so sure it would be. The dam was effectively closed during the worst of the flooding, my understanding is that this is done to help areas further downstream that flood very easily and would have suffered much more damage. The price we pay to help our neighbors. Ah, help our neighbors, what a concept, apparently doesn't apply to some boaters.......

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by ITD

Let's delve a little deeper into this question. Had the dam never been built, would the lake still be flooded? {snip}

Well of course it would have been Naturally w/o the dam the lake level would have been feet lower than is considered normal these days and the rise due to rain much less than what happened but I'm sure people would still be complaining about how "flooded" the lake is ... err ... would be. Then again w/o the dam the norm would be more frequent, large rises and drops in lake level so perhaps people would be used to such deviations.

[Lakegeezer]

Thanks to those who minimize their wake. It is appreciated.

Boat wake may be 90 degrees from the wind, and impacts the lake much differently than wind. It is twice as bad for the lake shore to be hit with both wind and wake.

If there is another flood within a year or two, it is more than coincidence. It should be considered as evidence of climate change.

I wonder what the real damage will be. The shoreline has been eroded. There has been a heavy dose of silt added to the lake. The lake ecosystem has experienced a second flood within seven months. The impact to the lake might take five years to recover if no more episodic events occur.

Sailboats, kayaks and cameras is my Memorial day weekend theme.

All the web gathered data from the state's monitoring sites points out that the dam operators are doing a good job. They estimate three weeks till normal water level. I believe them.

[Kevin C]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

It will always be this way on certain issues reguarding the lake..the daytrippers/renters against the lakefront homeowners.

Please don't generalize about the "daytrippers/renters against the landowners". I for one fall into the former category and have thusfar respected the NWZ by staying away from the boat and lake that I love and respect.

I feel as though some members of the forum eat their young.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Kevin C

{snip}
I feel as though some members of the forum eat their young.

Only the tasty ones !

[Kevin C]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Only the tasty ones !

Tastes like chicken!!

[rander7823]

With all of the fuss you are all making I am wondering if we should rethink our trip to the lake this year. My parents had brought my brother and myself up to the lake in the mid seventy's and My wife and are started bringing our 3 girls up 4 years ago and they love it. We rent a condo at Samoset and are going to be up the July 8-15th, but it sounds like the lake is a mess. Are things going to be back to "normal" by then? There isn't much of a beach to begin with there and we were planning to take them out on the Mt Washington, but a three hour cruise sounds like it will turn into a trip on the SS Minnow.

Are the skee ball games at the Weirs under water?

[KonaChick]

Kevin C true...not all daytrippers/renters fall into the "live for the moment category" , I should have said some...that's why the last sentence I posted was.. "Just a thought". I feel this way about renters from personal experience. The place next to use was rented on and off througout the summer. I can't tell you how disrespectful the majority of the renters were towards our beautiful lake. Disreguarding boating rules, littering, loud late into the night..the list goes on. Thank god the place was so run down that as the years went on the owner had trouble renting it out. To be honest the most respectful group that has ever rented next door were the tournament fisherman. I still feel this way that many daytrippers/renters "in general" don't respect the lake as those of us who have a more permanent vested interest do. IMHO

[Zee]

Don't cancel your vacation! Mother Nature has a way of equalizing these situations. The water level can go down a lot in seven weeks. It is already starting to drop. This is all very temporary. The water level doesn't go down as quickly as it goes up but it will drop. The lake is as beautiful as it ever was, you just have to go slower and enjoy it more. I wouldn't be surprised if in seven weeks the level is back to its mid-summer average.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by rander7823

{snip} We rent a condo at Samoset and are going to be up the July 8-15th, but it sounds like the lake is a mess. Are things going to be back to "normal" by then? There isn't much of a beach to begin with there and we were planning to take them out on the Mt Washington, but a three hour cruise sounds like it will turn into a trip on the SS Minnow.

Are the skee ball games at the Weirs under water?

I wouldn't worry about it. By that timeframe things will have long been back to normal ... well anything due to the recent weather. Can't say how much "normality" you'll find that time of year in the Weirs area though