Cabin Cruiser Operators - "WAKE UP!...no, WAKE DOWN"!

[Seaplane Pilot]

http://www.marlinmag.com/news/news/n...ake-51792.html

I won't give them the respect of calling them "Captains", but instead will call them "Operators", just to be polite. There are a few other things I'd like to call them, but cannot do so on this family-friendly forum. A true Captain is aware of his surroundings and is responsible for all aspects related to the operation of his vessel. This includes the responsibility for their wakes. I'm in utter amazement at the complete disregard that a lot of these Cabin Cruiser operators have for other boaters, swimmers and for shorefront property. I think Marine Patrol should also publicize this rule as much as they do the Safe Passage Rule.

How can these bureaucrats sit in Concord at the DES/Wetlands bureau, dreaming up crazy ideas to protect the shorefront, such as prohibiting the cutting of brush or picking up pine needles? Look at the real problem will you. One pass by from these Cabin Cruisers does more damage to the shorefront than one property owner could ever think of causing by cutting a few bushes. Where is the outrage from these conservation groups working so hard to ramrod a speed limit? Get your heads out of the sand folks and address the real problems to the shorefront being caused by these huge Cabin Cruiser wakes - not from fast boats.

[AC2717]

I have a fairlt large 23 footer with a deep v hull and even I was getting tossed around by these un-needed monsters on a lake of Winn's size, those are made for the ocean not the lake. i would take a GF boat over these any day. They are part of the reason, not just the wind, that makes up such large waves in the lake

[MAXUM]

Actaully I'll take this a step further. The amount of wave action on the lake is due to not only the increased boat traffic, but the increased number of power boats and the overall size of them. Granted the lake can get rough from time to time, but how much of the wave action is caused by wakes created by boat traffic? Now how much of that wave action is increased due to the size of the average boat being used on the lake these days? Everyone keeps going bigger in an attempt to have a comfortable ride, yet at the same time, the bigger you go the bigger the wake you throw up behind prompting everyone into a never ending increase in boat size. I do agree that cabin cruisers do throw an enormous wake, larger than any other boat on the water, including the go fast cigarette boats. Bottom line, you can't really write laws to curb this unless certain boat types, sizes, etc.... start being regulated. That of course is not the right answer either, matter of fact I'm not sure there is a good answer. All I know is that if everyone keeps going bigger the wakes aren't going to get smaller. Being an operator of a smaller vessel on the lake I just typically stay clear of the busy areas and find that the lake is large enough to find areas less travelled.

[Dave R]

The rules against cutting brush and removing pine needles near the shore exist to stop runoff from washing things like fertilizer into the lake and ruining the water. They are not there to stop erosion. Shore erosion is a natural part of the life cycle of the lake and is only a problem for property owners, not the health of the lake. DES really does not care about the problems of property owners, only the health of the lake.

[Pineedles]

Unfortunately the biggest wave action onshore is caused by the lake's largest boat, the Mt. Washington. Don't know what the wave action looks like on other parts of the lake, but in Center Harbor the Mount's waves are the largest. They come up the highest, and break on the shore with much more force than any other boat, cabin cruisers included.

[SIKSUKR]

Was it a little rough at your place last weekend SP?Dave,I think SP's point was that he feels a lot more damage is done to the lake by big wakes than the increased runoff potential from raking a few pineneedles.I'd have to agree.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Dave R

The rules against cutting brush and removing pine needles near the shore exist to stop runoff from washing things like fertilizer into the lake and ruining the water. They are not there to stop erosion. Shore erosion is a natural part of the life cycle of the lake and is only a problem for property owners, not the health of the lake. DES really does not care about the problems of property owners, only the health of the lake.

From the DES/Wetlands website:
"EROSION IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM"

Erosion is the process by which soil is carried by water or wind. When water carries soil into a waterbody, it not only fills in the waterbody but contributes nutrients that algae and aquatic weeds need to grow. When vegetation is removed or ground is disturbed, erosion accelerates, overloading the waterbody with nutrients and sediment. This can often contribute to excessive algae and aquatic weed growth, reducing the clarity and quality of the water.

I agree that DES does not care about the problems of property owners. However, according to their mission statement and various Rules and Acts, they do care about water quality and particularly erosion. What difference does it make if soils, vegetation and nutrients are entering the lake via runoff or via huge waves that are slamming into the shoreline and also up on to the horizontal plane of land? Water is running back into the lake in both cases, carrying the same particles. If you saw the amount of soil, etc., that is in the water after these waves hit, you would not believe your eyes.

[jrc]

What would a law or rule that would address your concerns look like?

The old saying "you are responsible for your wake" is a not really enough. If it's true, it's a civil liability issue. Someone would have to prove specific damage caused by negligent operation of a specific boat, that's a pretty high hurdle.

BTW calling people "operator" versus "captain" isn't really an insult. There are very few licensed captains on the lake. The few that I have met, tend to be big boat/ship ocean trained professionals and have absolutley no concern for their wake, except for no wake zones and 150' from shore. Recreational boaters who started small and worked their way up, know first hand what a big wake feels like and tend to have concern for what they in their wake.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

From the DES/Wetlands website:
"EROSION IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM"

Erosion is the process by which soil is carried by water or wind. When water carries soil into a waterbody, it not only fills in the waterbody but contributes nutrients that algae and aquatic weeds need to grow. When vegetation is removed or ground is disturbed, erosion accelerates, overloading the waterbody with nutrients and sediment. This can often contribute to excessive algae and aquatic weed growth, reducing the clarity and quality of the water.

I agree that DES does not care about the problems of property owners. However, according to their mission statement and various Rules and Acts, they do care about water quality and particularly erosion. What difference does it make if soils, vegetation and nutrients are entering the lake via runoff or via huge waves that are slamming into the shoreline and also up on to the horizontal plane of land? Water is running back into the lake in both cases, carrying the same particles. If you saw the amount of soil, etc., that is in the water after these waves hit, you would not believe your eyes.

I think the erosion the DES is most concerned with is rain water carrying stuff from "long" distances. It's not the erosion, per se, they worry about, it's the non-lake stuff that's carried into the lake that bothers them. I'm not saying waves don't cause erosion, I'm saying low lying brush, duff, and pine needles help to stop runoff from carrying sediment into the lake. Perhaps the same brush, duff and pine needles would stop waves from doing the same. If you remove this stuff and replace it with a lawn, or even just rake up the pine needles to keep them from being tracked into the house, you are exacerbating the problem. If left alone, the shore will eventually go back to it's natural, wave resistant state. Look around the lake at fairly untouched areas. The shore has a nice barrier of rocks up to the height of typical waves(and by "typical" I mean whatever is there, big, man-made waves are typical) and a firm layer of duff with brush growing in it right down to the edge of the rocks. Take the rocks away and clear out the brush to put in a beach or a lawn, and you make a spot for rain water to funnel all kinds of nasty stuff right into the lake. Waves are a given on a lake, man made or not, they do happen. The DES thinks man made lawns and beaches are a bigger "problem" than waves and that's why the DES would rather pursue the idea of responsible shore living than preventing waves.

If one were to leave the shore alone for 25 years while boats continue to operate on the lake, I bet the sediment you see when wakes wash ashore would be pretty much gone. Waves will make the shore to erode until ithe waves reach something solid (rocks), the old sediments will eventually settle to the bottom and new waves will beat against the new, solid shoreline rather than the artificial, soft shoreline. With a solid shoreline, the waves have nothing to stir up. The downside is that the lakeshore will expand and shore front property will be underwater in areas that are destined to erode away.

[lakershaker]

I have to agree that the cabin cruisers are much more of a problem to the average boater than the GFs. On Rattlesnake this past Sunday, the wind had picked up and there were whitecaps b/w Rattlesnake and Sleepers. Our boats were riding fine at the dock until a big crusier went by about 3/4 of a mile away, and eventually the large wake hit the shore and pounded the boats into the dock causing damage to both the dock and the boats. In this case, there was no law broken as the boat was well off the shore, but the wake traveled forever, and even with the wind generated waves wasn't diminished by the time it came ashore.

Another time last summer, our 23' bow rider was swamped at no wake speed as a big cruiser didn't slow down past LT-2. This seemed much more due to operator disinterest in others around him.

Unfortunately, while these bigger boats have a much larger impact to their surroundings, many of the owners don't have an equal amount of regard for the effect on others...

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by lakershaker

I have to agree that the cabin cruisers are much more of a problem to the average boater than the GFs. On Rattlesnake this past Sunday, the wind had picked up and there were whitecaps b/w Rattlesnake and Sleepers. Our boats were riding fine at the dock until a big crusier went by about 3/4 of a mile away, and eventually the large wake hit the shore and pounded the boats into the dock causing damage to both the dock and the boats. In this case, there was no law broken as the boat was well off the shore, but the wake traveled forever, and even with the wind generated waves wasn't diminished by the time it came ashore.

Another time last summer, our 23' bow rider was swamped at no wake speed as a big cruiser didn't slow down past LT-2. This seemed much more due to operator disinterest in others around him.

Unfortunately, while these bigger boats have a much larger impact to their surroundings, many of the owners don't have an equal amount of regard for the effect on others...

There may have been no law broken per se, but a vessel (operator) is responsible for its wake and any damage done to another's property by this wake. I'll bet at least 90% of these Cabin Cruiser operators have no idea of this rule.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

There may have been no law broken per se, but a vessel (operator) is responsible for its wake and any damage done to another's property by this wake. I'll bet at least 90% of these Cabin Cruiser operators have no idea of this rule.

I think this topic has been discussed before and the conclusion was that boaters are not responsible for shoreline damage. If they are, I'd like to put in a claim for a yard of topsoil to replace what was removed by wake.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

I think this topic has been discussed before and the conclusion was that boaters are not responsible for shoreline damage. If they are, I'd like to put in a claim for a yard of topsoil to replace what was removed by wake.

I agree- they are not held responsible for shoreline damage or erosion caused by wakes. However, they are responsible for damage to physical property such as boats and docks, as well as if their wakes cause another boat to capsize. Where is the accountability?

[SweetCraft]

Seapilot,

Thank you for bringing up this issue. Dave R I hate to say that you are incorrect on this issue. Come see the waves that hit our place on Sat/Sun afternoon's. We recently had a wave from one of these boats that was 4-5 feet in height and not only swamped one of our boats but came half way into the yard flooding it. Once a small child of one our friends was knocked down on the shore line cutting her lip and chipping her tooth due to one of these beasts and its HUGE wake. Clearly these boats cause tons of erosion as well as being a safety hazard. DES needs to address it.
As for the damage/liability issue. These "operators" are liable and they are indeed responsible for any damage resulting from their wakes. Even beyond 150 feet. I checked with Marine Patrol. Chasing it and proving it however can be another matter. I am always amazed at how utterly clueless these cabin cruiser operators are. They either have absolutely no idea the utter chaos their wakes can cause with other boaters and those onshore or they don't care? The Mt. Washington goes by all the time and the wake is almost negligible ? Is it just when it is "planing up " so to speak? Not sure of that one.
Lets write to our legislators and let them know that the real issue isn't speed or GFast's but these large cabin cruisers , their draft and the resulting wakes.

[wildwoodfam]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

I think this topic has been discussed before and the conclusion was that boaters are not responsible for shoreline damage. If they are, I'd like to put in a claim for a yard of topsoil to replace what was removed by wake.

You are responsible for damage caused by your boat's wake: The Navigation Rules make it quite clear that the operator of a vessel is responsible for any damage caused by the wake their vessel produces. This not only includes damage caused to other vessels, but to people, property (such as docks) and the environment as well. Use courtesy and common sense when approaching other vessels and keep you wake to a minimum.

Problem is - you have to witness the action, take down the bow numbers and then prove that the vessel did the damage.

Which HAS BEEN DONE - friends who had been having a lot of trouble with a specific neighbor, one with a large crusier. This neighbor would come into shore on plane and cut his engines - thus creating this enormous wash that would cut under the boat giving it a push to the dock, BUT continuing onto crash on the shore line....removing items from their docks, and beach and eroding about 2 feet of their shoreline in one season!! They set up a video camera - waited patiently then filmed the boat coming in from a Sunday cruise - caught the entire action of the wash coming ashore - went to their attorney - who contacted the marine patrol, local police, DES, and the neighbor (who referred them to their attorney). Long story LONGER - the neighbor was made to pay for damages to the dock and shorline - was fined by DES and ever since have been VERY courteous boaters (at least when putting into dock!)

[Bear Islander]

The solution is simple.... limits. This lake is not the ocean. There is a size boat that is to large for a given lake. We can argue about what that size is, but there are boats that are to big for this lake.

You can do it with horsepower limits, displacement limits or whatever works best. The Mount has a large wake but it only goes by once or twice a day.

We need to take a step back from the bigger, faster, louder, more pollution direction we are going in.

[Seaplane Pilot]

I'm glad to see others chiming in on this subject and that it's not just me with these experiences. I have my video and still cameras handy at all times to document these situations with the big boat wakes. I had not even brought up the fact that these waves can cause serious personal injury to people and pets, should they be caught off-guard. Thanks to the others that brought this up in other posts. As I've said a million times before, a lot of these cabin cruisers are far more dangerous and destructive than the fast boats will ever be. However, I've yet to see any attention paid to the problem by the special interest groups or media. That's about to change - wait and see.

[Onshore]

Several of you have commented that DES does not care about the problems of property owners and the DES is only concerned with surface run-off and not with erosion resulting from boat wakes. Neither of these statements is true. DES has been given the authority to control that activities that occur on the land adjacent to and under surface waters in order to prevent erosion, regardless of the cause, and protect water quality. DES has never been given the authority to regulate boating activities. That authority lies solely with the Dept of Safety. A large part of the rationale behind the movement to place greater protections on shoreline cover is that the vegetation will help property withstand the ever increasing boatwakes. The thicker the root systems the better. Woody stemmed shrub root systems are more dense than those of trees and for that reason are of great value at the waters edge.

In short it comes down to trying to do the best you can with what you have. DES has the ability to control what individuals cut, plant, or build in the shoreland so that is where they focus their attention.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by shore things

Several of you have commented that DES does not care about the problems of property owners and the DES is only concerned with surface run-off and not with erosion resulting from boat wakes.

I think it was just me, actually. My point was not to condone big wakes, I was trying to point out that following the DES guidelines makes the shore more able to handle big wakes. Also, to point out that the DES does not mind one bit that thier recommendations might mess up your view or beach.

I think the laws that make captains liable for wake damage ought to be enforced. There's no need for giant wakes on the lake.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The solution is simple.... limits. This lake is not the ocean. There is a size boat that is to large for a given lake. We can argue about what that size is, but there are boats that are to big for this lake.

You can do it with horsepower limits, displacement limits or whatever works best. The Mount has a large wake but it only goes by once or twice a day.

We need to take a step back from the bigger, faster, louder, more pollution direction we are going in.

The Mount operates 7 days a week.

Most cabin cruisers operate during the weekend - Saturday and Sunday.

That's two days a week compared to the Mount's seven days a week.

That makes the Mount the worst offender of the big boats on the Lake.

Be careful of your wishes. The Mount, Sophie, and Doris may soon be banned from travel on the Lake, as a result.

Then, again, codeman 671 could deliver your mail with his pontoon boat.

[jrc]

Here is a thread two years ago regarding making a wake on Winnipesaukee.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=1794

Nothing has really changed since then.

If the DES really wanted to make a positive impact on water quality and the environment, the first thing they would do is ban two-stroke outboards. Every drop of oil mixed in the fuel ends up in the water or the air. Everytime one goes by there's a cloud of smoke and an oil slick.

[Gatto Nero]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

Unfortunately the biggest wave action onshore is caused by the lake's largest boat, the Mt. Washington. Don't know what the wave action looks like on other parts of the lake, but in Center Harbor the Mount's waves are the largest. They come up the highest, and break on the shore with much more force than any other boat, cabin cruisers included.

I couldn't disagree more. That wake is minimal in comparison to other boats 1/4 the size. It goes by my house everyday and I hardly notice a ripple on a calm day. It's not even worth the gas to get there to jump it on a jet ski. Check out Manatu sometime if you want to see a wake. That thing is a traveling takeoff ramp manufacturing machine.

[SweetCraft]

Gatto is correct.... the mount goes by our house 4-5 times per day at least and the wake is barely measurable. Does it make a wake getting up to speed? We have seen a swell of maybe 6-8 inches from it while the cabin cruiser's send in 3-4 violent waves (NOT swells) on a regular basis. If someone in one of them planes up or down ( or doesn't plane out at all because they don't know how too drive a boat) out front then FORGET IT.... LARGER waves.

[Pineedles]

We're directly across from 1/2 mile so when the Mount comes in or out, its no more than 400-500 feet away. Maybe that's what accounts for the large waves. It does only come once a week though, twice on Mondays. But come to think of it the waves do seem smaller than they were many years ago. Wonder if their using a different kind of prop or soemthing. BTW, I love the Mount and wouldn't want it to curtail its visits to Center Harbor.

Reading some of the posts about the runoff erosion seems to make alot of sense, particularly what was said about the rocky shoreline. Looking at pictures of our shoreline area 100 years ago show minimal if any erosion where we left the rocky natural shoreline alone.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by GWC...

Then, again, codeman 671 could deliver your mail with his pontoon boat.

Where the heck did that come from??? I wasn't even involved in this topic...

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Was it a little rough at your place last weekend SP?Dave,I think SP's point was that he feels a lot more damage is done to the lake by big wakes than the increased runoff potential from raking a few pineneedles.I'd have to agree.

SS, it's always rough as you know. However, it's not the volume of traffic or even the size of the waves generated by 98% of the boats. It's the 2% Captain Boneheads in their Cabin Cruisers that are causing the problems. That's ok though...I've ordered my new boat (photo below) and will be passing through all the Cabin Cruiser Yacht Clubs at 0200 hrs to say hello. But of course I'll be at NO WAKE SPEED!

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

We're directly across from 1/2 mile so when the Mount comes in or out, its no more than 400-500 feet away. Maybe that's what accounts for the large waves. It does only come once a week though, twice on Mondays. But come to think of it the waves do seem smaller than they were many years ago. Wonder if their using a different kind of prop or soemthing. BTW, I love the Mount and wouldn't want it to curtail its visits to Center Harbor.

Reading some of the posts about the runoff erosion seems to make alot of sense, particularly what was said about the rocky shoreline. Looking at pictures of our shoreline area 100 years ago show minimal if any erosion where we left the rocky natural shoreline alone.

The present Mt Wasington makes smaller wakes than the one I knew as a kid. It's a result of the extra length they added back in '82. The worst wakes I see come from the Sophie C and Doris E. There are a few Carver/Silvertons that make quite the waves as well though I've seen some of about the same size that don't make as much ruckus as their cousins. Not sure if it's small changes in the boats or speed that make the differences I see. Certainly I've seen some operate in mush mode and through very large wakes. I'm still amazed that some choose to do this.

[Just Sold]

Seaplane Pilot when can I get a ride?

Codeman breakout the ice boat and see what the wake will be without ice.

Seriously though. The Mount was lengthened some years ago and after that the wake it produces is far smaller. I can attest that the Sophie C and Doris E do have much larger wakes. Just ask my son about the bath he took while we were sitting for the Sopie C to pass many years ago- a 17' bow rider really dives into the wake when not underway. I had a great laugh though, I ducked down.

It is not just large cruisers but all boats with deep vee, extended plane and other technology to give a better ride that produce large wakes. It seems to me to be boats larger than 20' that are the contributors to larger wakes. My boat at 22.5' and a deep V puts out a wake that can be large if not on plane and cruising at 25-30 mph +/-. I try but am not always successfull in preventing a wake that "attacks" the shore line. At least I know and I am aware of the wake and try to control it if I am closer to shore and outside of the 150' rule. Wake speed of course inside 150'.

Alton Bay around Sandy Point is a place where wakes are always a problem due to the path all must take. There are many other places and we all should be diligent to do the best we can and not create large destructive wakes.

As a foot note the large cruisers do put out a very large wake and their number on the lake has been increasing ever so slightly.

[Pineedles]

I don't think it was as long ago as the lengthening that I noticed the smaller shore waves, as that was 25 years ago. (oh my God) It was more recently, that's why I asked about the prop. Good thought though.

[secondcurve]

Folks:

The big boats are here to stay. Unfortunately, we all must adjust to the changes on the lake. Enjoy today, because it will be worse tomorrow.

The best defense to the current conditions is to purchase a solid deep V boat in the 22-26 foot range. This type of craft should keep you reasonably safe in most conditions you will face on Winnipesaukee. Good Luck and have a great summer.

[ApS]

Too many times while becalmed, the Mount has passed me about 200 feet away: if I hadn't been looking for the Mount's wake—I might have missed it.

It's possible that if you are on the inside of a turn that a cruiser makes, expect the wake to be much steeper and violent. While kayaking, I heard a frothy wake curl up behind me that was above my shoulders!

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

http://www.marlinmag.com/news/news/n...ake-51792.html

From the article:

"The ski boat, which only had about 12 inches of freeboard, was swamped with little warning and both passengers plunged into the water, scrambling to grab life jackets or anything else that could help them stay afloat."

"Twelve inches of freeboard" is about what every canoe has.

I've noted previously (some would say complained) that my entire wooded shoreline acre is slowly losing its soil to erosion. Yes, some is due to the rare storm directly out of the north—like what struck here July 6th, 2000 at 4:28PM. But every warm weekend, without fail, a train of oversized cruisers—that weren't here in 1991—will churn my shoreline into muddy murkiness. How can their wakes continue to draw mud from the shoreline year after year?

Even gentle rains—like yesterday's—gradually replaces soil and duff from the woods uphill. And every weekend, the "replacement mud" gets washed into the lake by cruisers. Fortunately, this entire mile of shoreline is too shaded and rocky to promote exotic milfoil growth (like the same-facing shoreline of Rattlesnake Island).

"...To make matters worse, both offending vessels left the scene without offering assistance..."

I'm grateful that a 3/8" mooring line snapped that secured my family's two-ton sailboat to the dock here. There's a good chance the dock would have been pulled off the pilings by a wake that one cruiser left behind.

We caught up to that cruiser ½-mile away as he was setting a second anchor to a shoreline tree. He seemed genuinely sorry, but four hours later, he sped away with the same disregard. Could this pennant—flown by many Winnipesaukee cabin cruisers—be part of the problem?


I hope that a warning is placed at those distant marinas and yacht clubs that support such lake-oversized boats; otherwise, I'd support an RSA keeping such boats to headway speed 1000' from shorelines: NHDEA rules on breakwaters are too burdensome for residents in bays and coves.

"...Each cabin cruiser was violating the no wake zone,and both were throwing 3- to 4- foot- high wakes..."

When those wakes collide with each other, the resulting wake—though brief—can be double that height: some time, follow a pair that are "racing" side by side.

From a Google search last season, only one court case regarding wake damage could be found. It occurred in Maine and involved a fatality.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by jrc

Here is a thread two years ago regarding making a wake on Winnipesaukee.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=1794

Nothing has really changed since then.

If the DES really wanted to make a positive impact on water quality and the environment, the first thing they would do is ban two-stroke outboards. Every drop of oil mixed in the fuel ends up in the water or the air. Everytime one goes by there's a cloud of smoke and an oil slick.

I believe this to be untrue. Can you post a link to back up your claim?

[Mink Islander]

Originally Posted by Gatto Nero

I couldn't disagree more. That wake is minimal in comparison to other boats 1/4 the size. It goes by my house everyday and I hardly notice a ripple on a calm day. It's not even worth the gas to get there to jump it on a jet ski. Check out Manatu sometime if you want to see a wake. That thing is a traveling takeoff ramp manufacturing machine.

I agree with Gatto Nero. Have you ever seen the wake of the MV Bear that serves the two YMCA camps on Bear Island. Humongous.

And how about the mammoth Marine Patrol boat? Two falls ago, on a calm and quiet day, that monster went by in front of my place, a few thousand feet out. It's wake was so large that it lifted my 25 foot bowrider (on it's mooring whips, but not as tight a usual), and tossed it violently against the dock posts damaging the gel coat on the rear side of the boat. The bill was several hundred dollars to repair the damage.

Of course the big cabin cruisers are frequent and habitual captain boneheads in this regard. I had one plow by me last weekend while I was fishhing maybe at most hundred feet off my starboard (I could have hit him with a beer bottle close). He seemed to be running at a speed designed to create the biggest possible wake. (no worries about fuel prices there). I had to turn into his wake and risk fouling my lines rather than get swamped by the giant rollers he produced. He and his wife seem to enjoy watching my boat get tossed by his wake. I have a 17 foot Montauk. The lack of consideration from boats that size is consistently awful. I used to think they were just clueless. Arrogance is probably more likely the root cause.

Ah but you can't legislate common sense or courtesy.

[Gatto Nero]

I don't know about "every drop" but it's not hard to find lots of information about how bad 2 strokes are for the environment. Here are just the top few from a Google search. Number 2 on the list was from our own DES.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/science/sandemay00/article1_e.html

http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/ard/ard-31.htm

http://www.wavelengthmagazine.com/1997/am97two.php

[Mink Islander]

Originally Posted by Gatto Nero

I couldn't disagree more. That wake is minimal in comparison to other boats 1/4 the size. It goes by my house everyday and I hardly notice a ripple on a calm day. It's not even worth the gas to get there to jump it on a jet ski. Check out Manatu sometime if you want to see a wake. That thing is a traveling takeoff ramp manufacturing machine.

I agree with Gatto Nero. Have you ever seen the wake of the MV Bear that serves the two YMCA camps on Bear Island. Humongous.

And how about the mammoth Marine Patrol boat? Two falls ago, on a calm and quiet day, that monster went by in front of my place, a few thousand feet out. It's wake was so large that it lifted my 25 foot bowrider (on it's mooring whips, but not as tight a usual), and tossed it violently against the dock posts damaging the gel coat on the rear side of the boat. The bill was several hundred dollars to repair the damage.

Of course the big cabin cruisers are frequent and habitual captain boneheads in this regard. I had one plow by me last weekend while I was fishhing maybe at most hundred feet off my starboard (I could have hit him with a beer bottle close). He seemed to be running at a speed designed to create the biggest possible wake. (no worries about fuel prices there). I had to turn into his wake and risk fouling my lines rather than get swamped by the giant rollers he produced. He and his wife seem to enjoy watching my boat get tossed by his wake. I have a 17 foot Montauk. The lack of consideration from boats that size is consistently awful. I used to think they were just clueless. Arrogance is probably more likely the root cause.

Ah but you can't legislate common sense or courtesy.

[jrc]

First of all, I know that there are new super clean two-strokes around, but I'm talking about the old tried and true engines. Cheap, reliable, easy to fix, last forever and dirty as hell.

"Every drop of oil mixed in the fuel ends up in the water or the air"

Well this statement is common sense, you mix gas and oil, then put it in the gas tank. When you are done riding it's gone, where did it go? Either in the air or the water. Some of it is burned and some of it is still unburned. Here are some links:

http://www.bluewaternetwork.org/repo...missionbay.pdf
http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/ard/ard-31.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in509964.shtml

"Everytime one goes by there's a cloud of smoke and an oil slick"

This statement is my observation but I'm not alone:

http://www.ec.gc.ca/science/sandemay00/article1_e.html
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/...sti_id=6793672

I still miss my old two-stroke dirt bike, but you have to move on.

[Aubrey]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

Folks:

The big boats are here to stay. Unfortunately, we all must adjust to the changes on the lake. Enjoy today, because it will be worse tomorrow.

The big boats may not be here to stay. A law passed by the legislature or an administative rule adopted my the Department of Safety and they are gone. Many New Hampshire lakes have horsepower limits and plenty of people where angered and had to remove their boats from the water as a result.

A horespower limit could be fazed in over many years or an exception made for boats already operatining in Winni.

The important thing is to see that even LARGER boats don't start showing up. Ten years from now we could be looking back at 2007 as being the good old days before the big boats arrived.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Operation of Boats
Section 270:29-a
270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats. – Any person who shall operate a power boat upon any waters of the state in a careless and negligent manner or so that the lives and safety of the public are endangered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Source. 1981, 353:12, eff. Aug. 22, 1981.

Seems to me that these huge waves are endangering the lives and safety of the public.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

Sounds like some of you could substitute posts from last year with "GFLB" and insert "cruiser" this year. As I and others have said many times, its the operator not the boat. The last few years all the performance boats were lumped together, this year's target seems to be cruisers. Lets target ignorant, irresponsible boaters of all types of crafts and focus on the real issue. Just curious how many of you are members of any of the various organizations around the lakes region that promote boating safety (PM me and I'll give you a list). I prefer to donate my time to promote safety rather than complain. I remember the Black Panthers from the 60s and 70s; "You're either part of the problem or part of the solution".

BTW, from my observations the Dorris E and Sophie C throw some of the biggest wakes, but I forgot, they're nostalgic. Has anyone written to Mount Washington Cruises? (I haven't because it doesn't bother me). Summer and life are just to short.

Off my soapbox, over and out

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Paugus Bay Resident

Sounds like some of you could substitute posts from last year with "GFLB" and insert "cruiser" this year. As I and others have said many times, its the operator not the boat. The last few years all the performance boats were lumped together, this year's target seems to be cruisers. Lets target ignorant, irresponsible boaters of all types of crafts and focus on the real issue. Just curious how many of you are members of any of the various organizations around the lakes region that promote boating safety (PM me and I'll give you a list). I prefer to donate my time to promote safety rather than complain. I remember the Black Panthers from the 60s and 70s; "You're either part of the problem or part of the solution".

BTW, from my observations the Dorris E and Sophie C throw some of the biggest wakes, but I forgot, they're nostalgic. Has anyone written to Mount Washington Cruises? (I haven't because it doesn't bother me). Summer and life are just to short.

Off my soapbox, over and out

You are absolutely correct - it's the operator, not the boat. Thanks for the reminder. SP

[SweetCraft]

Unfortunately it is more than just the operator. These deep hull , heavy cabin cruisers 30 plus feet are just too big for this lake and displace too much water getting up and off plane even when properly operated. Thats the bottomline unfortunately. You wouldn't have a certain size boat in your bath tub.... there just too big. We will need to limit the size and number soon. Its coming. Sorry for the bad news.

[Gatto Nero]

In the case of the Manatu that I mentioned above I really don't think it has much to do with the operator. That boat has a displacement hull so it's never going to plane out, no matter what the captain does, so it's always going to leave a huge wake at cruising speed. For the record, I'd don't much care about the size of the wakes as they don't cause me any problems. Now if someone would please get the wind to ease up............

[Gavia immer]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

All I know is that if everyone keeps going bigger the wakes aren't going to get smaller. Being an operator of a smaller vessel on the lake I just typically stay clear of the busy areas and find that the lake is large enough to find areas less travelled.

You need a bigger boat!

[Paugus Bay Resident]

Unfortunately it is more than just the operator. These deep hull , heavy cabin cruisers 30 plus feet are just too big for this lake and displace too much water getting up and off plane even when properly operated. Thats the bottomline unfortunately.

Your opinion, which of course you are entitled to, and with which I happen to disagree. The fact is, people are entitled to have whatever kind of boat they want on the lake. Provided it meets legal requirements of course.

BTW, the operator chooses when, where and how (tabs, etc.) to get on plane. They choose whether or not to do it in a courteous and responsible manner.

What do you propose we do? Ban all boats over a certain length or displacement or hull configuration (planning vs displacement)? Shades of an all too familiar debate of the past on a similar topic.

[Knot Droolin']

Ok, so the question begs to be asked:

In all of our minds, what is too big of a boat?

[TomC]

Originally Posted by Knot Droolin'

Ok, so the question begs to be asked:

In all of our minds, what is too big of a boat?

easy: "the next size up"

[tis]

Well, we can ban the GF boats, cruisers, then smaller boats who aren't on plane too close to the shore. How can we ban the wind, which does a pretty good number on shorelines?

[Silver Duck]

I've been waiting for this since certain of the "No performance boats" crowd made it clear a couple of years ago that cruisers were to be their next target.

So far as I'm concerned, the question which truly begs to be asked is where some folks get off thinking that their convenience in enjoying Lake Winnipesaukee in their chosen manner outweighs the ability of other folks to enjoy the lake in a diferent way.

Seaplane Pilot, since you saw fit to start this discussion with a reference to a non-Winnipesaukee incident, I'll counter by referring to the recent collision down in Louisiana between a seaplane and a small boat. Since seaplanes undeniably have litttle ability to manouver to avoid a collision once they're up on step during takeoff or have irrevocably committed to a landing, it could justifiably be said that at, certain times, they constitute a menace to navigation and boater safety.

Nobody really needs the convenience of being able land on the lake and taxi up to their dock; for folks who want to fly in, their plane could land at the Laconia airport. (It could easily be said that airplanes belong in an airport, the way that some folks are saying the cruisers belong in the ocean.) Perhaps seaplanes should be banned from Winnipesaukee for the safety of all? (No? Didn't think so. )

Now, as I recall, the cruisers in that link were in a no wake area and, if they were on Winnipesaukee, would have been too close to the other boats to be above now wake speeds to boot. (I suspect that they must have been related to Captain Bonehead. ) Here, I fully agree that anybody who operates their boat in an unsafe manner needs to be caught, fined, and, if they won't learn from that experience, lose their right to operate a boat on the lake. But, for heaven's sake, penalize the operator, not everybody who owns the same kind of boat!

Silver Duck

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Paugus Bay Resident

Your opinion, which of course you are entitled to, and with which I happen to disagree. The fact is, people are entitled to have whatever kind of boat they want on the lake. Provided it meets legal requirements of course...

I think you may have missed the point. We are talking about CHANGING the legal requirement. Lots of lakes limit boat size with horsepower limits. I would have preferred that over speed limits as it kills two birds with one stone.

And the only people that NEED to use boats are us islanders.

How big is to big? That's easy, any boat bigger than mine is to big.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

And the only people that NEED to use boats are us islanders.

That presupposes that you NEED to have island property. I assume you want it, as do people who want larger boats.

My solution is that we drain the lake and make everyone happy No more worries over speed limits, boat sizes, McMansions, fertilizers, etc. Problem solved.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

You need a bigger boat!

I know - I'm thinking of bumping up a little bit in size. May pull the trigger next year. With gas prices as they are, I'd prefer to deal with a smaller package with a cheaper daily operating cost.

[Outlaw]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

And the only people that NEED to use boats are us islanders.

There are only two things in life anyone absolutely NEEDS, food and shelter. The rest are wants and desires we all indulge in based on our financial and emotional abilities. You don't need an island property, you don't need a boat of any kind or size, you don't need to come to Lake Winnipesaukee, all of these are choices we make and every choice has a trade off.

I suppose if you take the island property and the absolute need for a boat to the extreme, than an inflatable muscle power (paddling) boat would suffice the requirement, thus eliminating all potential for complaints and concerns; no pollution, no motors, no wakes, no nothing.

It is entirely possible to limit size, but what you can not limit is the size of the already "existing" boats on the lake. This would more than likely fall under a grandfather clause like many of the improvements and changes around our beautiful lake; permanent docks of certain sizes, cutting of trees, building new homes often fall under a grandfather clause when there was an existing structure, septic and well placement.....the list goes on.

Winni has become an increasingly desirable destination for many people over the last decade and more people means more traffic, not only on the roads but on the water as well. The driving habits of individuals on the road are the same habits exhibited on the water.

And don't forget, for many people with cabin crusiers, these are their second homes, it's one way to be able to afford water front property

I think this is one instance where "size doesn't matter".

[gtxrider]

Outlaw I agree. Isn't it strange that quite a few people complained about the seat belt law and how the government was sticking their noses in our personal freedom? Now it seems we want the goverment to limit the size of boats on the lake. Be careful what you ask for. Perhaps they would like the size of our vehicles mandated. We can get along driving a car that goes 0-70 in under an hour with no air conditioner and an AM radio.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

I've been waiting for this since certain of the "No performance boats" crowd made it clear a couple of years ago that cruisers were to be their next target.

So far as I'm concerned, the question which truly begs to be asked is where some folks get off thinking that their convenience in enjoying Lake Winnipesaukee in their chosen manner outweighs the ability of other folks to enjoy the lake in a diferent way.

You and I frequent the same cabin cruiser website where complaints between GFBLs and cabin cruisers are frequent. (And where the seaplane crash was referenced.)

Just this month at that site, the cabin cruisers are complaining of noisy, late-night, high-speed runs by GFBLs through no-wake zones where the cruiser types are sleeping. The GFBLs state "their legal right" to boat in anything they want to, and that their wakes are small. The cabin cruisers complain about fishermen, kayakers, and Jet-Skis in narrow channels. The GFBLs state wakes left by cruisers at any planing speed are a hazard to them, and that cruisers ignore no-wake zones until inside their marinas.

When I opened my Popular Science magazine this month, I found a full-page ad for "Discover Boating".

What a strange ad, I thought—who needs to "discover" boating .

The site is sponsored nationally by NMMA (American boat builders) who are seeing an increasing rejection of family boating by Americans!

Originally Posted by Paugus Bay Resident

The fact is, people are entitled to have whatever kind of boat they want on the lake.

"Entitlement" seems to be an issue: Winnipesaukee boaters with long memories remember when none of these issues were prominent.

The bottom line is that a few "excessive boats" are ruining boating for many—and not just here.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

I think you may have missed the point. We are talking about CHANGING the legal requirement. Lots of lakes limit boat size with horsepower limits. I would have preferred that over speed limits as it kills two birds with one stone.

And the only people that ARE ENTITLED to use boats are us islanders NOT THE REST OF YOU RIF-RAFF.

How big is to big? That's easy, any boat bigger than mine is to big.

There, I corrected the wording for you... I love it when you show your true colors, Senators and Representatives, look above at what the speed limit debate is really about.

[snowbird]

I estimate 10' of my waterfront has been lost to shorefront erosion in recent years----at least since the last survey. I wonder if all islanders have the same result and how much our appraisals might be reduced if land lost is accounted for. Wouldn't apply to mainland waterfronts in the same fashion, of course.

[Island Life]

Originally Posted by ITD

There, I corrected the wording for you... I love it when you show your true colors, Senators and Representatives, look above at what the speed limit debate is really about.

Although I thought it was offensive, I had to laugh when I read the words you changed in the quote. Look more closely at the islands (the ones not connected to the mainland by bridges). Most of the house are run down little cottages (present company included) and our boats are usually old and smallish. We're not calling anyone riff-raff.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Outlaw

There are only two things in life anyone absolutely NEEDS, food and shelter....

It is entirely possible to limit size, but what you can not limit is the size of the already "existing" boats on the lake. This would more than likely fall under a grandfather clause like many of the improvements and changes around our beautiful lake; permanent docks of certain sizes, cutting of trees, building new homes often fall under a grandfather clause when there was an existing structure, septic and well placement.....the list goes on....

Sorry, but you are absolutely wrong. My island home is the only home I own, it IS my shelter. I live here most of the year, it is my legal address. Therefore I NEED it under your own definition.

If I have given the impression that islanders have more rights than others to boat on Winnipesaukee, then I have done my job well. We Do!

And the Department of safety has enacted horsepower limits on many lakes. There is no grandfathering, you have to take your boat somewhere else. The department posts a list of lakes with speed and horsepower limits. If you read it you will find no consideration for existing boats.

When size limits come the opposition will do well to argue "what size" instead of "no limits". The speed limit opposition could easily have convinced the proponents to go with a higher limit, but they went with "no limits" and "live free or die" and now they have lost.

By the way, please obey the SPEED LIMIT when you go by Bear Island.

[Pineedles]

Originally Posted by snowbird

I estimate 10' of my waterfront has been lost to shorefront eroision in recent years----at least since the last survey. I wonder if all islanders have the same result and how much our appraisals might be reduced if land lost is accounted for. Wouldn't apply to mainland waterfronts in the same fashion, of course.

Actually, snowbird the frontage could increase while the depth decreases, and we all know that property onn the lake is valued by number of shore feet. Stay with my logic OK? If the frontage is straight now and it erodes into the shoreline in a scalloped shape the actual shore frontage increases. Disecting a circle in half is a shorter distance than measuring the length of half the circumfrence. Don't mean to be a smart alec but it could be a silver lining. Of course the property will have little when your home washes away.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

The bottom line is that a few "excessive boats" are ruining boating for many—and not just here.

APS, well put. I've been boating here since 1958 (started in a 12' dory). There have always been large boats on this lake and there have always been fast boats on this lake (albeit neither in the numbers there are today). The difference then, IMO, was courtesy, common sense and respect.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

You and I frequent the same cabin cruiser website where complaints between GFBLs and cabin cruisers are frequent. (And where the seaplane crash was referenced.)

Just this month at that site, the cabin cruisers are complaining of noisy, late-night, high-speed runs by GFBLs through no-wake zones where the cruiser types are sleeping. The GFBLs state "their legal right" to boat in anything they want to, and that their wakes are small. The cabin cruisers complain about fishermen, kayakers, and Jet-Skis in narrow channels. The GFBLs state wakes left by cruisers at any planing speed are a hazard to them, and that cruisers ignore no-wake zones until inside their marinas.

I can't recall the last time I heard of a speeding GFBL going down the Weirs Channel... Maybe elsewhere, not here...

Let's face it, this is about passing the buck. It always is. The GFBL's drive too fast or are too loud, the cabin cruisers make wake, the pwc dart around like flies annoying everyone, sail boats think they own the lake, paddlers do own the lake, the family boats don't know the rules of navigation...Unless all boats are banned this will NEVER go away. Is this what you want??? Maybe we should just go back to handmade birchbark canoes...

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

The bottom line is that a few "excessive boats" are ruining boating for many—and not just here.

Very true. Could not have said it better myself. I am glad we agree on something finally... If this is truly your belief then why punish the remaining 99% of good, responsible boaters with speed limits or limitization of the type/size of boats they can own and operate. Stop the discrimination and fix the problem.

[Silver Duck]

Had to leave yesterday before finishing my comments (grand daughter's dance recital. )

First off, I'm not overly fond of large wakes either. Since the admiral and I weekend aboard our boat, I'm probably more inconvenienced by them than most (I doubt that many folks island or shorefront homes are actually tossed around by them. ) But, that's something that goes with the liveaboard lifestyle that we love, and the last thing I want to do is throw somebody else off the lake so my "home" won't bounce around.

I think that APS is on the right track; it seems that these days, there are way too many people (everywhere, not just on the lake) with an "I'm getting mine, and to heck with you" attitude. IMHO, that attitude is exemplified by both the cruiser operator who goes by with their boat squatting by the stern pushing a mound of water, and by folks who want to "hog the lake" by banishing any kind of boat they don't like!

Think back, peolpe. Over the last few years, we've had threads bashing and wanting to banish PWCs, then GFBLs, and now cruisers! Seems like "my lake, and I'm not sharing with anyone that's not just like me" has become all too frequent a theme.

I, for one, have become hyper-aware of my wake since the high water level threads pointed out shoreline vulnerability to large wakes, but not everybody reads this forum (more's the pity. ) A "consciousness raising" campaign is definitely in order, and Seaplane Pilot's "Wake Up - Wake Down" phrase is quite catchy; pehaps NHRBA could do something with it.

Perhaps that might even be asociated with a grassroots "Five Blasts for Courtesy" campaign where five horn blasts (the boating signal for danger or "I disagree with your intentions") could be used to signal displeasure with the way a boat is being operated. (Though, come to think of it, the resulting cacophony might tick some folks off worse than the wakes. )

As a comment to those who are complaining that their boats are tossed around at their docks, it is quite possible to secure them in a manner that keeps them safe if you make the effort; I know this from first hand experience.

A final note to shorefront property owners; it isn't realistic to expect to gain courtesy and consideration from somebody you're trying to throw off the lake....

Silver Duck

[Outlaw]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

And the only people that NEED to use boats are us islanders.

In your orignal post you had stated, island people are the only ones who need to use boats. This is the statement I am working from.

Needs are absolutes, wants are desires; you desire transportation between the island and other land masses. When I go to the store, I want to drive my car instead of walk, but I don't need a car, I have two legs as a mode of transportation, but I desire to make the trip easier with a motor vehicle. The argument that island property people need boats is unconvincing at best, if you desire to go to other land masses my original point of an inflatable boat suffices the desire.

All choices have trade off's and island living does have it's share of trade offs, especially if there are no bridges. Shelter is a need and you wanted island property so one trade off is the challenge of transportation to other land masses, but this does not constitute island property owners to have boats and no one else. In that case, I do not live on an island I can have the use of a motor vehicle and island people can not - do you see the insanity in that logic?

Originally Posted by Island Lover

If I have given the impression that islanders have more rights than others to boat on Winnipesaukee, then I have done my job well. We Do!

"Islanders have more rights", very comical. Next on the agenda is limiting the amount of people who can have island property, your logic tells us, in order for people to have a boat they have to have island property. Does the size of the island have an impact on the size of the boat one could have?

[Bear Islander]

Outlaws quote "The argument that island property people need boats is unconvincing at best, if you desire to go to other land masses my original point of an inflatable boat suffices the desire."

Let's not get silly here. Obviously island residents need boats!

In the first place an inflatable boat is a boat. Secondly a ten mile row to get groceries is unworkable.

If I have a fire or medical emergency, do I NEED a boat, or just desire one?

[Islander]

Like Outlaw, few understand what it is like to live on an island. Outlaw claims all we need is food and shelter. However our shelter is on the island, and there is no food there. Therefore we need boats. On the mainland you can drive, walk, ride a bicycle, take a cab, hop a buss etc. On an island the only answer is a boat.

To most people when there is a lakewide no wake zone, this means no joy ride. To some islanders it means add an hour to every trip. And a late ice out means you can't get to your home.

To most people boats are pleasure craft, to us they are essential transportation. Much more important than having a car on the mainland.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

The bottom line as I see it is that you CHOOSE to live on an island, you don't have too, you could live on the mainland. People who have cruisers choose to have them, they could have rowboats. What makes your choice higher in "priority" than there's?

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Paugus Bay Resident

The bottom line as I see it is that you choose to live on an island, you don't have too, you could live on the mainland. People who have cruisers choose to have them, they could have rowboats. What makes your choice higher in "priority" than there's?

Bringing food to your home has priority over taking a joy ride.

So does taking a sick child to the doctors or rushing a family member to the emergency room.

This is just common sence and obvious. If you can't see the difference then you need to think about it some more.

[ITD]

Who cares? Islanders need boats, so what? Does this mean that people on islands should be the only ones allowed to have boats? I think not. Does this mean that people on islands should be allowed to dictate who gets a boat? Nope. Should islanders be allowed to dictate speeds? No they shouldn't. Is the true reason for most proponents of the speed limit showing? Why yes it is, they are unhappy with the number and size of boats and feel a speed limit will reduce both.

I bought a place on Winnipesaukee knowing full well that on weekends and holidays in the summer it is a busy place. Had I wanted quieter with less boats and a speed limit I would have bought "On Golden Pond" (Squam). If you want less boats and a speed limit I suggest you buy on Squam and stop trying to turn Winni into Squam.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

Bringing food to your home has priority over taking a joy ride.
So does taking a sick child to the doctors or rushing a family member to the emergency room.
This is just common sence and obvious. If you can't see the difference then you need to think about it some more.

You're either missing my point or choosing to ignore it. You CHOOSE to live on an island, you CHOOSE to have children, etc. Thankfully, you have the right to be able to make those choices and I have defended that right. I have the right to have an 80 foot boat on this lake. What about the people that would rather have a weekend cruiser to spend weekends (weeks) with their children than buy island property?


What makes your right to choose any higher in the grand scheme of things than mine? You seem to imply (sorry if I'm misinterpreting) that you have some inalienable right to live on an island and go back and forth at the expense of me having whatever kind of boat I'd like. Accept equality of choice (and freedom) and enjoy life (isn't that why you're on an island?).

My point, for my final time, is that its all about choice; your's is backed by the same higher moral authority than mine. We only make different choices (for different reasons).

[Outlaw]

The implication that island people have more rights is ludicrous, it's no more than a lashing out, and could even be construed as prejudice. Why would a person on an island deserve to have a fuel powered boat? Row or paddle you way to shore, it gets the job done. Is it realistic in the 21st century, probably not, but stating that a select few have greater rights than the masses, would this not be considered.........?

Why couldn't we impose a restriction on the size and type of boat island dwellers can have - an inflatable meets the basic requirements. Don't agree - than why should the same imposition be made on everyone else?

Freedom of choice is what we all have. I think if I were ever to maroon myself and become an island dweller, my mode of transportation would be helicopter, so I wouldn't need a boat.

[Silver Duck]

Island Lover (or, others with an answer)

I'd be quite curious to see the specific RSA(s) which grant special rights to island residents. Could one of you point me in the right direction?

So far as I've always been taught, operating a motorized vehicle upon a public way (including operating a motor boat on public waters) is a priviledge, rather than a "right", and I'd be astounded to see an actual RSA stating differently.

While a boat is admittedly a necessity for accessing island property, the island resident doesn't necessarily have to own it or be allowed to operate it. I, for one, can think of any number of instances where living on an island probably shouldn't "cut any ice", whatever, with respect to being allowed to operate a motor boat.

For instance, would you actually argue that a cronic BUI offender should continue to be allowed to operate a motor boat just because being forbidden to do so would make accessing their island home inconvenient? IMHO, this should be a case of "Tough luck; swim, paddle, or hitch a ride".

How about a scofflaw who refuses to get their safe boating certificate? Do you think that they should be allowed to operate a motor boat anyway, just because they live on an island?

Or (tragically because no wrongdoing is involved) someone that's losing their eyesight or succumbing to Alzheimers or has just plain gotten too old to be able to operate a motor boat safely? Does living on an island make it safe to continue to operate a motor boat? (Remember, WinnFabs pushed safety as a reason to promote a speed limit!)

Now, as to your crowing about the speed limit, let me remind you that it hasn't passed. What's gone into effect is a temporary experiment in two very limited areas of the lake, while the MP evaluates whether it makes any sense. Somehow, I doubt that will suffice to drive GFBLs off the lake.

What I do strongly suspect you've accomplished is to gift a bunch of island residents with speeding tickets when they take off out of the Lovejoy Sands public docks after sunset (sometimes in pouring rain or fog) like the proverbial bats out of **** and encounter an MP boat waiting, without the blue light going, out there in the darkness.

Do you think they'll be happy with WinnFabs? Do you think they'll continue to support the speed limit after getting nailed for what they've been allowed to do for years?

I don't.

Silver Duck

[Outlaw]

Three cheers for Silver Duck, excellent job.

Quack, Quack, Quack (those are the 3 duck cheers)

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

...Island Lover (or, others with an answer)

I'd be quite curious to see the specific RSA(s) which grant special rights to island residents. Could one of you point me in the right direction? ...

Good question....and I think we've been down this path with some of these same individuals before.

Simply stated, the State by RSA specifically states that "...no corporation or individual shall have or exercise in any such body of water any rights or privileges not common to all citizens of this state...".

I have attached the entire RSA below and highlighted the specific answer to your question in red.

Hope this helps.....


TITLE XXII
NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY
CHAPTER 271
PILOTS, HARBOR MASTERS, AND PUBLIC WATERS
Defining Certain Public Waters
Section 271:20
271:20 State Water Jurisdiction; Published List of Public Waters; Rulemaking. –
I. All natural bodies of fresh water situated entirely in the state having an area of 10 acres or more are state-owned public waters, and are held in trust by the state for public use; and no corporation or individual shall have or exercise in any such body of water any rights or privileges not common to all citizens of this state; provided, however, the state retains its existing jurisdiction over those bodies of water located on the borders of the state over which it has exercised such jurisdiction.
II. The department of environmental services shall prepare, maintain, and publish an official list of all public waters in the state. The commissioner of the department of environmental services shall adopt rules, pursuant to RSA 541-A, relative to this publication.
Source. 1901, 9:2. PL 152:16. RL 182:17. RSA 271:20. 1977, 24:2. 1990, 177:2, eff. June 26, 1990.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Islander

Like Outlaw, few understand what it is like to live on an island. Outlaw claims all we need is food and shelter. However our shelter is on the island, and there is no food there. Therefore we need boats. On the mainland you can drive, walk, ride a bicycle, take a cab, hop a buss etc. On an island the only answer is a boat.

To most people when there is a lakewide no wake zone, this means no joy ride. To some islanders it means add an hour to every trip. And a late ice out means you can't get to your home.

To most people boats are pleasure craft, to us they are essential transportation. Much more important than having a car on the mainland.

Curious minds need to know:

Which mode of transportation do you utilize when ashore to fulfill your needs?

The lakewide no wake speedlimit is to protect your shorefront property, also, or did you forget?

Again, which mode of transportation do you utilize when ashore to fulfill your needs, if having a car on the mainland is not as important?

Some food for thought:

Try telling a homeless family living in their car that their car is not as important as your boat.

[Islander]

You see what people do when they lose an argument, they pretend it was really about something else!

Who said there were any laws giving more rights to islanders.... nobody!

Who said islanders had more rights than anybody else..... nobody!

Go back and read. The question was if islanders NEED boats. The obvious answer is - yes they do. But instead of admitting they were wrong, some people want to pretend it was about islanders having more rights than others.

We don't have more right to a boat than anybody else. We do have more NEED of a boat than anybody else.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Islander

Who said islanders had more rights than anybody else..... nobody!

Maybe you should be the one that re-reads the posts...

Originally Posted by Island Lover

If I have given the impression that islanders have more rights than others to boat on Winnipesaukee, then I have done my job well. We Do!

As a fellow islander I find this line of thinking ludicrous and arrogant. We choose to have island properties (definitely not a necessity) and have the same rights as people who do not. Period. We are not special. Maybe certain people (especially on parts of Bear) seem to think that they are more so than others, but here is a little tip. You are not!

By the way...

Originally Posted by Islander

We do have more NEED of a boat than anybody else.

We NEED our boats because of our CHOICE to live on an island. If people choose to live out here year round it is their CHOICE. I am sure you can buy a nice house or condo for what your island property is worth. How's that for an option?

[Islander]

I read that and took it as a joke. But she may mean that people have more right to get to their home than others have to take a joy ride.

However there are at least 4 islanders posting in this thread, who says they are all from Bear.

Lets not start attacking people because of the island you THINK they live on.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Islander

However there are at least 4 islanders posting in this thread, who says they are all from Bear.

Lets not start attacking people because of the island you THINK they live on.

Shall I say it again? Re-read.

Does my post state "only people on Bear"? Or pertain only to this thread? Historically speaking a certain group of islanders seem to be the ones spearheading many of the complaints and crusades to change the lake and the laws pertaining to it. Guess what? Many are from Bear. It's gotta be in the water...

[Bear Islander]

I am from Bear

Do islanders have more rights to a boat than anybody else? Interesting question. We do have more need, and I think that should mean more accommodation. But nobody has a right to a boat or a right to operate one.

Not everybody on an island chose to live there.

The reason why Bear islanders are leading the push for speed limits is not the water.

[Outlaw]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Not everybody on an island chose to live there.

This is America, land of the free and the brave. Everything you do is a choice. Unless the island you live on is Alcatraz, my guess is you are there by choice. Even under house arrest you can be relocated off the island. I give the benefit of doubt though, because there are times when people loose control over circumstances and the result is they are forced to do things they may not ordinarily do.

All everyone is trying to communicate is we all make choices everyday, and whether you choose to live on an island, on mainland, in a tree, or forced to live on the streets, no one of these people, because of where they live, is entitled to more or less than the other.

No one needs a boat, no one needs a car, it's a choice we make because we want to have one based on our individual reasons.

What about the folks and 'their children' who do not have any property in the Lakes Region, but spend their vacations and weekends aboard their cabin cruiser (whatever the size) so they and their children can enjoy life and create wonderful childhood memories. This is their second home, this is what they chose to purchase. Are they now not entitled to have a boat on the lake because A) it's a cabin cruiser and/or B) they do not own island property?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

The bottom line is that a few "excessive boats" are ruining boating for many—and not just here.

Originally Posted by codeman671

Very true. Could not have said it better myself. I am glad we agree on something finally...

Oops. 'Got to fix that!

Originally Posted by codeman671

If this is truly your belief then why punish the remaining 99% of good, responsible boaters with speed limits or limitization of the type/size of boats they can own and operate.

Here's my "belief", based on NMMA's own website (boat manufacturers trying to reverse the decline in the family boating market), plus my personal observations:

"The few" are chasing away the family boater, thereby "growing" the percentage of irresponsible boaters.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I am from Bear

Not everybody on an island chose to live there.

I seriously doubt someone held a gun to your head

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Cal

I seriously doubt someone held a gun to your head

Most people are on Bear because their parents, grandparents or great grandparents chose to live there. When an ancestor buys island property in 1895 and each generation grows up on the island, did the current residents choose to live on an island? Not really.

Accommodation is the right word. The higher need requires more accommodation.

[ossipeeboater]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Most people are on Bear because their parents, grandparents or great grandparents chose to live there. When an ancestor buys island property in 1895 and each generation grows up on the island, did the current residents choose to live on an island? Not really.

Accommodation is the right word. The higher need requires more accommodation.

wow I hope not all the island owners are as arrogant as you, islander and bear islander seem to be. Just because you own on an island does not give you any more right to the lake than anyone else as established by the state law that Skip so nicely posted.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by ossipeeboater

wow I hope not all the island owners are as arrogant as you, islander and bear islander seem to be. Just because you own on an island does not give you any more right to the lake than anyone else as established by the state law that Skip so nicely posted.

Your using a very wide brush there. What statement of mine do you take offense to?

I posted "nobody has a right to a boat or a right to operate one."

I do believe that our situation requires special consideration at times. Thankfully the Marine Patrol understands the situation and towns have been very helpful by providing police boats, fire boats, public docks, mainland parking etc. Some towns even have islander only docks and parking lots.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by ossipeeboater

wow I hope not all the island owners are as arrogant as you, islander and bear islander seem to be. Just because you own on an island does not give you any more right to the lake than anyone else as established by the state law that Skip so nicely posted.

If the shoe fits.....

You are very arrogant in your complaint about our arrogance.

I don't think my post that you quoted was arrogant at all. Sometimes the way a post is read is not the way it was intended. Your preconceived notions can insert a flavor the author did not include.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Your using a very wide brush there. What statement of mine do you take offense to?

I posted "nobody has a right to a boat or a right to operate one."

I do believe that our situation requires special consideration at times. Thankfully the Marine Patrol understands the situation and towns have been very helpful by providing police boats, fire boats, public docks, mainland parking etc. Some towns even have islander only docks and parking lots.

Watch Out!

Some of these guys will have Skip contact the towns and tell them the law does not allow islander only parking or docks!

And the police boat gives rides to the islands for town employees like the health officer and building inspectors, that will have to stop! The police don't give them rides to mainland property so they can't be allowed to give special consideration to island property.

That is all we are asking for here, a little consideration for an unusual situation. State and local officials get that, unfortunately it is beyond the understanding of some on this forum.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Most people are on Bear because their parents, grandparents or great grandparents chose to live there. When an ancestor buys island property in 1895 and each generation grows up on the island, did the current residents choose to live on an island? Not really.

Accommodation is the right word. The higher need requires more accommodation.

Again, you chose to be there. So it was in your family, if it was passed down to you and you didn't want to be there you could sell it and profit handsomely. It is your choice to be there! You do not have to be a current resident. You don't have to be a resident at all.

Higher need? Come on...It is a priviledge to be on an island as far as I am concerned. One that many can't afford with todays property values.

You make it sound so tough to have something passed down to you. I feel bad for you.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Islander

Watch Out!

Some of these guys will have Skip contact the towns and tell them the law does not allow islander only parking or docks!

And the police boat gives rides to the islands for town employees like the health officer and building inspectors, that will have to stop! The police don't give them rides to mainland property so they can't be allowed to give special consideration to island property.

That is all we are asking for here, a little consideration for an unusual situation. State and local officials get that, unfortunately it is beyond the understanding of some on this forum.

Crusading to have certain types of boats from the lake to meet their own personal agendas has nothing to do with consideration. As an islander we are entitled to certain town services to be provided such as docking for islanders as we pay our own fair share of taxes (and then some), the same as someone on the mainland is entitled to receive different services such as plowing of roads, curbside waste pickup, etc.. In Gilford, we receive islander only docks and dumpsters at the dock. There is a fire boat and the town does send inspectors out to do what is needed, although the town also receives money back from us in payment for this (taxes, building permit fees, etc). This is our "consideration".

What other consideration do you expect? It's our choice to live where we do.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Again, you chose to be there. So it was in your family, if it was passed down to you and you didn't want to be there you could sell it and profit handsomely. It is your choice to be there! You do not have to be a current resident. You don't have to be a resident at all.

Higher need? Come on...It is a priviledge to be on an island as far as I am concerned. One that many can't afford with todays property values.

You make it sound so tough to have something passed down to you. I feel bad for you.

I not sure what your problem is with island residents. Who said living on an island was tough? It's great!

What difference does it make if we chose to live here or inherited? None! I was just answering the question as to how some people got here.

As has been pointed out living on an island requires accommodations not required to mainland dwellers. And for the most part we get them. We don't get many of the town services, like schools, for our tax dollars. So it is only fair that we receive accommodations in the form of some docks, parking and a fire boat. If you think this is so unfair take it up with the towns.

The Meredith selectmen have been very good to the islands over the years. Why don't you contact them and tell them how unfair that is to other boaters.

[ossipeeboater]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Sorry, but you are absolutely wrong. My island home is the only home I own, it IS my shelter. I live here most of the year, it is my legal address. Therefore I NEED it under your own definition.

If I have given the impression that islanders have more rights than others to boat on Winnipesaukee, then I have done my job well. We Do!
And the Department of safety has enacted horsepower limits on many lakes. There is no grandfathering, you have to take your boat somewhere else. The department posts a list of lakes with speed and horsepower limits. If you read it you will find no consideration for existing boats.

When size limits come the opposition will do well to argue "what size" instead of "no limits". The speed limit opposition could easily have convinced the proponents to go with a higher limit, but they went with "no limits" and "live free or die" and now they have lost.

By the way, please obey the SPEED LIMIT when you go by Bear Island.

You have no more right than anyone else to the lake under NH law. I will agree that the towns should make certain accomadations to the island land holders because they are taxing that property therefore should be providing normal services like fire and police protection but the lakes itsel is there for everyone to enjoy not just those with a property on an island.

[ITD]

I wonder if some of these entitlement comments made it to the Meredith newspapers if the Meredith voters would be so eager to help out island residents, probably not.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by ossipeeboater

that's arrogant right there.

You have no more right than anyone else to the lake under NH law. I will agree that the towns should make certain accomadations to the island land holders because they are taxing that property therefore should be providing normal services like fire and police protection but the lakes itslef is there for everyone to enjoy not just those with a property on an island.

My comment that islanders have more RIGHTS than others was incorrect and I retract it. The term I should have used, and would have if I had thought about it more, is "need accommodation".

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Islander

...Watch Out!

Some of these guys will have Skip contact the towns and tell them the law does not allow islander only parking or docks!. ...

Originally Posted by Islander

...You see what people do when they lose an argument, they pretend it was really about something else!...

Thank you Islander, I couldn't have said it better myself, and you did it all within the same thread!

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

I not sure what your problem is with island residents. Who said living on an island was tough? It's great!

What difference does it make if we chose to live here or inherited? None! I was just answering the question as to how some people got here.

As has been pointed out living on an island requires accommodations not required to mainland dwellers. And for the most part we get them. We don't get many of the town services, like schools, for our tax dollars. So it is only fair that we receive accommodations in the form of some docks, parking and a fire boat. If you think this is so unfair take it up with the towns.

The Meredith selectmen have been very good to the islands over the years. Why don't you contact them and tell them how unfair that is to other boaters.

Try reading my last post to Islander before writing such a ridiculous response... I am an islander! I am clear on what is requires and am fine with what the town provides. My problem is with people (in this case certain islanders) that make it sound like they were forced into this and expect the rest of the lake to bow to their every need. I will say it once again, being on an island is a priviledge (I think that makes 3 times)... The level of entitlement that certain people seem to expect is a bit over the top.

[jeffk]

Any local government has the responsibility to accept the reality of the conditions that exist in the locale that services must be provided for. For example, in a city with multistory buildings it would be negligent for the fire department not to have extensible ladder trucks. Fire services are provided to all residents. The tall buildings must be "accommodated".

However, where is the line drawn? If children live on an island must a town provide "school bus boats" or should it be the responsibility of the parents to bring the child to a shore location where the bus could pick them up?

Everyone has a some choice of where they live. Property is easily transferred. You make a choice every day to either live where you are now or move. Just because you don't want to move doesn't mean you can't. An ancestor may have made the original choice but you own it now. You also have the responsibility to deal with the consequences of your choice.

If I decide to live a remote rural area and the nearest grocery store is 20 miles away and the nearest doctor is 100 miles away am I entitled to to free transportation or a subsidized car? If I can't manage the transportation to needed facilities maybe I need to move closer to them or within an area that at least has public transportation. I probably don't want to move but I might have to.

I, for example, don't look at towns providing reserved dock space for island residents as an "accommodation" but instead as a unique perk. This is not a service provided to any other resident. If a shore resident of the same community threw his boat in the water for the day, could he use "island docking" for a while if he needed to run to the store for more soda? The town doesn't even provide me with garbage pickup. Why should they be "accommodating " anyone with free reserved docking? Why can't the island residents band together and buy a docking area for their use?

The statement " a higher need requires higher accommodation" is illuminating. My answer is, "No, it doesn't". It may require more work by the person with the needs to get what they need. They might even have to make some trade offs. If you have a serious medical condition, you might have a very high need for prompt medical service. However, by placing yourself on an island you create a barrier to that need. Is it up to the town or anyone else to meet the unique need you have created or is it up to you to move to a more accessible, although less desirable, place?

Finally, in a silly attempt to remain true to the original topic of this thread, large displacement boats can be a hazard not only to the shoreline but to other boats as well. Perhaps there should be some training and usage guidelines for these boats but I could say the same for many types of boats. I think it is unfortunate that some people can't seem to accept the responsibility for the reasonable use of the vehicles they own but we have plenty of "boneheads" out there. I just don't think it's right to punish the majority of responsible boaters for the stupidity of the few.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Crusading to have certain types of boats from the lake to meet their own personal agendas has nothing to do with consideration. As an islander we are entitled to certain town services to be provided such as docking for islanders as we pay our own fair share of taxes (and then some), the same as someone on the mainland is entitled to receive different services such as plowing of roads, curbside waste pickup, etc.. In Gilford, we receive islander only docks and dumpsters at the dock. There is a fire boat and the town does send inspectors out to do what is needed, although the town also receives money back from us in payment for this (taxes, building permit fees, etc). This is our "consideration".

What other consideration do you expect? It's our choice to live where we do.

I think I see what codeman's problem is. It's not about being islanders. He agrees with us about the need for special consideration. It's the fact that we support speed limits that he is angry about.

Islanders DO have a RIGHT to back any legislation they choose. Speed limits and horsepower limits are coming. And I will continue to crusade about them with or without your approval.

Skip - Not sure what your point is. For a long time this thread has been about if island residents require special consideration or not.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Islander

I think I see what codeman's problem is. It's not about being islanders. He agrees with us about the need for special consideration. It's the fact that we support speed limits that he is angry about.

Islanders DO have a RIGHT to back any legislation they choose. Speed limits and horsepower limits are coming. And I will continue to crusade about them with or without your approval.

Skip - Not sure what your point is. For a long time this thread has been about if island residents require special consideration or not.

Yes and no.

I do see the need for the town to provide certain accomodations (they'd better do something for what we pay in). Does this however give us more right to the lake than others? Nope. Not at all.

You are welcome to vote on whatever you choose, just because my views on speed limits and hp limitations are not the same as yours I do not fault you on it. I do have a problem with some of the tactics that have been used to crusade for this and the underlying motives that drive this. This is another topic (one that has been covered before) for another thread...

What lit me up was the comments about having more rights to the lake than others, followed by comments of how island life was basically forced on them. People make choices and there is certain necessities in life, island living is not one of them. I am sure many people would love such a thing to be forced on them...

[Seaplane Pilot]

This thread was started to discuss the problems with large waves, not as a boxing ring between islanders and non-islanders. Now - back to the problems with large waves.

[Islander]

codeman

I think the word "rights" was only used once and has been withdrawn.

I think the comments about choosing to live on an island were misunderstood on both sides. One side was talking about island life being voluntary while the other was talking about how they came to be islanders. Most islanders did not "choose" island life, but love it and will not leave it.

It's kind of like religion, most people didn't choose their religion, but they stay voluntarily.