New Bill Regarding Wake Surfing?

[4 for Boating]

Was forwarded this today regarding a new bill being discussed in a legislative hearing this month - I was unaware that something like this was even being considered - curious as to who/what initiated this bill.

Perhaps this is already known to everyone here and I'm out of the loop? (Joke)

>>>> HB 1301, establishes a process whereby 25 shorefront/local property owners can petition the Department of Safety for a public hearing to ban or restrict wake surfing on a body of water. <<<<

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by 4 for Boating

Was forwarded this today regarding a new bill being discussed in a legislative hearing this month - I was unaware that something like this was even being considered - curious as to who/what initiated this bill.

Perhaps this is already known to everyone here and I'm out of the loop? (Joke)

>>>> HB 1301, establishes a process whereby 25 shorefront/local property owners can petition the Department of Safety for a public hearing to ban or restrict wake surfing on a body of water. <<<<

I probably received the same email as you from Silver Sands. I filed my statement of opposition online immediately. It was the first I have heard of it. I am a bit surprised, I keep a pretty close eye on the lake related FB groups and nothing has been mentioned. It seems like someone was trying to slip this one through.

[John Mercier]

The LSR would have been listed with the title.
The bill lists the prime sponsor and two additional.

You could contact the prime and ask which person or group initiated it.

[Dick52]

The wakes on Winni have become absurd. The erosion gets worse every year. Hoping the bill passes!! I am sure numerous posts will now show how wakes and wakeboarding are good for the lake. I too hate regulations, but when people abuse their "rights, "
the governing bodies need to step up and protect.

Anyway, any help with emails to write to would be appreciated.

[Descant]

This seems to parallel the process for a group to get together to ban PWC's a long time ago, in certain coves and some lakes. Mostly, PWC's don't make much wake. but they were very noisy. Not so many years ago, the Winni speed limit was passed. Part of that issue was, again, noise. If you can get the wake surfers to turn off their amplified music, there will be fewer objections. Nobody surfs near me, so that isn't an issue, but I hear the noise (music) from miles away.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Dick52

The wakes on Winni have become absurd. The erosion gets worse every year. Hoping the bill passes!! I am sure numerous posts will now show how wakes and wakeboarding are good for the lake. I too hate regulations, but when people abuse their "rights, "
the governing bodies need to step up and protect.

Anyway, any help with emails to write to would be appreciated.

I think you could just send it to Will Darby. He is the primary sponsor and would see to it that it gets entered into the record. He is also sponsoring the Cyanobacteria Mitigation Loan and Grant Fund bill.

will.darby@leg.state.nh.us

Not sure of what the outcome will be... but I suspect that some lakes will be left more open... and the concern is the spill over to the smaller lakes.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by Descant

This seems to parallel the process for a group to get together to ban PWC's a long time ago, in certain coves and some lakes. Mostly, PWC's don't make much wake. but they were very noisy. Not so many years ago, the Winni speed limit was passed. Part of that issue was, again, noise. If you can get the wake surfers to turn off their amplified music, there will be fewer objections. Nobody surfs near me, so that isn't an issue, but I hear the noise (music) from miles away.

The newer PWC's are 4 stroke and quieter. Well, at least they were until a few years ago when the manufacturers started putting stereos on them.

To me, the difference is, a PWC will go by once and may pass by on the way back home. The wakeboats, with their loud sound systems, sometimes blasting "music" loaded with F bombs, set up in one area and repeatedly go back and forth until everyone on the boat has a turn. I am amazed that the operators of these boats have so little regard for the damage they do and the number of shore line residents that are negatively impacted by them.

Many time I have had to close the windows and turn the TV volume up just to hear it over the noise generated by the wakeboats, sometimes boats that are a mile away. The large waves generated wash over the retaining wall onto the lawn.

I would love to see this bill pass but I am sure the marine trades groups will be agressively fighting it.

[Descant]

Tilton BB,
The PWC may pass by you once, same as a GFBL, but on a 300-500 acre pond or cove, they just keep circling. This bill isn't just for Winnipesaukee.

[root1]

I have a wakeboarder 'living' next door to me.
They leave their wake-boat fully ballasted all summer, so even at 'no wake' speed, its causing massive waves that are slowly damaging/stressing shoreline and floating dock/rafts, and moored boats. Their 3 teenagers & friends are in/out all day, all weekend. I will give them credit for waiting till they get out of the bay before they 'board'; but they NEVER de-ballast ....... grrrr.
I guess, from my point of view, restricting my neighbor to wake-board on the broads will have no positive effect unless it requires 'de-ballasting' before leaving the broads (something not practically enforcable).

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

The newer PWC's are 4 stroke and quieter. Well, at least they were until a few years ago when the manufacturers started putting stereos on them.

To me, the difference is, a PWC will go by once and may pass by on the way back home. The wakeboats, with their loud sound systems, sometimes blasting "music" loaded with F bombs, set up in one area and repeatedly go back and forth until everyone on the boat has a turn. I am amazed that the operators of these boats have so little regard for the damage they do and the number of shore line residents that are negatively impacted by them.

Many time I have had to close the windows and turn the TV volume up just to hear it over the noise generated by the wakeboats, sometimes boats that are a mile away. The large waves generated wash over the retaining wall onto the lawn.

I would love to see this bill pass but I am sure the marine trades groups will be agressively fighting it.

Its a mixture of several bills.

[imyourhuckleberry]

Originally Posted by root1

I have a wakeboarder 'living' next door to me.
They leave their wake-boat fully ballasted all summer, so even at 'no wake' speed, its causing massive waves that are slowly damaging/stressing shoreline and floating dock/rafts, and moored boats. Their 3 teenagers & friends are in/out all day, all weekend. I will give them credit for waiting till they get out of the bay before they 'board'; but they NEVER de-ballast ....... grrrr.
I guess, from my point of view, restricting my neighbor to wake-board on the broads will have no positive effect unless it requires 'de-ballasting' before leaving the broads (something not practically enforcable).

Frustrating. where do you live?

[retired]

It's not just wakeboard boats that are making big waves. We have over 25 feet boats that go by our place on the big lake all day in the summer, that cruise by at 10-15 mph with the bow up creating wakes 200 feet from shore that rival the wake of the Mount. I can't keep my boat at the dock without it ripping at the lines. At least the wakeboarders stay out from shore. I don't see a solution to the problem unless you include all boats. Good luck with that.

[chaseisland]

Hey Retired, have you tried dock line snubbers to reduce the strain on dock lines? They work for me. Check West Marine.

[livefreeordie]

Originally Posted by retired

It's not just wakeboard boats that are making big waves. We have over 25 feet boats that go by our place on the big lake all day in the summer, that cruise by at 10-15 mph with the bow up creating wakes 200 feet from shore that rival the wake of the Mount. I can't keep my boat at the dock without it ripping at the lines. At least the wakeboarders stay out from shore. I don't see a solution to the problem unless you include all boats. Good luck with that.

Unfortunately people going maximum wake speed has increased a ton since the speed limit and people not being educated that that type of speed and attitude of the board is the least efficient way to boat.

[tummyman]

This is bill HB1390 that is in committee right now...it solves the issue in small coves and really protects the shore lands. Finally a solid bill !! Vote to support it !!

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Twenty Four

AN ACT relative to regulating wakeboating and wakesports.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 New Paragraphs; Boating and Water Safety; Definitions Added. Amend RSA 270-D:1 by inserting after paragraph XIII the following new paragraphs:
XIV. "Wakeboat” means a motorboat that has one or more ballast tanks, ballast bags, or other similar devices used to enhance or increase the size of the motorboat’s wake.
XV. “Wakesports” means:
(a) Using a surfboard, wakeboard, hydrofoil, or similar device to ride on or in the wake directly behind a wakeboat with or without a rope, including wake surfing; or
(b) Operating a wakeboat with someone riding the wake directly behind the boat.
XVI. “Wakesports zone” means an area of a waterbody that has a minimum of 50 contiguous acres that are at least 500 feet from shore on all sides and is at least 20 feet deep, located on a lake, pond, or reservoir on which vessels powered by internal combustion motors are allowed and may be used at speeds exceeding 5 miles per hour.
2 New Section; Boating and Water Safety; Wakesports. Amend RSA 270-D by inserting after section 3 the following new section:
270-D:3-a Wakesports.
I. In addition to requirements in this chapter and rules adopted thereunder, the following prohibitions and limitations shall apply:
(a) Wakesports are prohibited between sunset and sunrise.
(b) Wakesports are prohibited behind a vessel propulsion system that extends beyond the swim platform.
(c) Wakesports shall not be permitted:
(1) On a body of water smaller than 50 contiguous acres.
(2) Within 500 feet of a shoreline or in-water structures.
(3) In waters less than 20 feet deep.
II. The commissioner shall develop and make publicly available wakesports zone maps of legal areas on New Hampshire public waters that meet the requirements of paragraph I.
3 New Paragraph; Rulemaking; Wakesports. Amend RSA 270-D:8 by inserting after paragraph II the following new paragraph:
III. Regulation of wakesports under RSA 270-D:3-a.
4 Effective Date. This act shall take effect July 1, 2024.

[root1]

Mr. Tummyman
Thankyou for your time & effort in posting the wakeboarding proposal. They all sound like reasonable rules. Sadly, it does not address a requirement for wakeboats to be 'ballasted' only when 'waking' a skier. I don't have a problem with wakeboating 'proper'. But, I do have a problem with boats going to/from their fun with ballasted boats!; if you can follow what I'm very awkwardly trying to describe.
J

[WinnisquamZ]

Originally Posted by root1

Mr. Tummyman
Thankyou for your time & effort in posting the wakeboarding proposal. They all sound like reasonable rules. Sadly, it does not address a requirement for wakeboats to be 'ballasted' only when 'waking' a skier. I don't have a problem with wakeboating 'proper'. But, I do have a problem with boats going to/from their fun with ballasted boats!; if you can follow what I'm very awkwardly trying to describe.
J

That is one rule that could be enforced.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[DickR]

Originally Posted by root1

... Sadly, it does not address a requirement for wakeboats to be 'ballasted' only when 'waking' a skier. I don't have a problem with wakeboating 'proper'. But, I do have a problem with boats going to/from their fun with ballasted boats!; if you can follow what I'm very awkwardly trying to describe.
J

This could be a matter of ignorance, arrogance, indifference, or all three. I was curious as to how long adding or unloading ballast water might typically take, so I did a bit of googling. Here is but one reference of the subject: https://wayneswords.net/threads/surf...en.8314/page-4. The impact of these boats on shorelines and enjoyment of the lake by others is not just on Winnipesaukee.

There can be built-in tanks, filled and emptied by pump, and hard ballast bags (eg. bag filled with steel shot). Many boats apparently are simply built to be heavy and carry a full complement of people and gear. The weight and shape of many of these make a big wake even without filling their ballast tanks. As to fill or drain time, the numbers I saw in my brief search are on the order of 4-10 minutes each way. I can imagine that adding 20 minutes of "down time" to an outing would be too much for the patience of some of these operators.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by DickR

This could be a matter of ignorance, arrogance, indifference, or all three. I was curious as to how long adding or unloading ballast water might typically take, so I did a bit of googling. Here is but one reference of the subject: https://wayneswords.net/threads/surf...en.8314/page-4. The impact of these boats on shorelines and enjoyment of the lake by others is not just on Winnipesaukee.

There can be built-in tanks, filled and emptied by pump, and hard ballast bags (eg. bag filled with steel shot). Many boats apparently are simply built to be heavy and carry a full complement of people and gear. The weight and shape of many of these make a big wake even without filling their ballast tanks. As to fill or drain time, the numbers I saw in my brief search are on the order of 4-10 minutes each way. I can imagine that adding 20 minutes of "down time" to an outing would be too much for the patience of some of these operators.

My boat has 3 tanks and takes 6-7 minutes to fill. I start it when leaving the dock (at idle) and by the time I motor out into the open it is done. Same process to empty. We only run ballasted out in the broads.

[tis]

I watched the hearing for SB 431 which is the 200' rule and it seemed to me that the consensus was it wasn't enough so they will look at it some more. One thing one of the members said was that it was inconsquential to Winnipesaukee because it is so big which is not true at all because of the coves and harbors. Some of these areas are not as wide as the smaller lakes.

[John Mercier]

Maybe a couple reasons... PWC long ago went to 300 feet. So for larger craft with more displacement, they probably expect at least that.

Inconsequential could also mean that due to the size of Winnipesuakee, it left plenty of area to operate without even coming close to shore. Even the 500 foot proposal shows plenty of open area.

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Maybe a couple reasons... PWC long ago went to 300 feet. So for larger craft with more displacement, they probably expect at least that.

Inconsequential could also mean that due to the size of Winnipesuakee, it left plenty of area to operate without even coming close to shore. Even the 500 foot proposal shows plenty of open area.

I'm not sure that's the exact word he used, but you make a good point.

[tummyman]

They need to try the 500 foot deal fro a year and see if things improve for all parties.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Maybe a couple reasons... PWC long ago went to 300 feet. So for larger craft with more displacement, they probably expect at least that.

Inconsequential could also mean that due to the size of Winnipesuakee, it left plenty of area to operate without even coming close to shore. Even the 500 foot proposal shows plenty of open area.

300’? It’s 150’ distance for “ski craft” from shore or other vessels unless in tight bays or coves under a defined size. Now keep in mind that a ski craft is also defined as 2 person, most pwc built these days are 3 seaters and this falls under the definition of a boat. In this case, it’s 150’ regardless.

They are pushing wakeboats to 500’. While 500’ still allows plenty of area on Winnipesaukee, it adversely pushes those partaking in wakesports into busier, rougher waters.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by tummyman

They need to try the 500 foot deal fro a year and see if things improve for all parties.

It’s a feel-good law for those asking for change. Will it improve anything for those partaking in the sport? No, why would it? It just pushes them further into the more dangerous areas.

Will there be enforcement? Hell no. There aren’t enough resources to police it, just like the other laws on the books. Start with enforcing safe passage first. This will make the lake a safer place.

[John Mercier]

The DOS NH Boating Laws and Responsibilities Handbook states on Page 48...

Requirements Specific to Ski Craft.

It is illegal to operate a ''ski craft'' within a cove (a bay or inlet that does not exceed 1000 feet at its widest point) or within 300 feet of shore unless the ''ski craft'' is proceeding at headway speed directly to an area where ''ski craft'' operation is permitted.

So unless it is an old handbook on-line... the regulation is 300 feet from the shore. It is copyrighted 2022.

Moving all vessels to the 300 foot rule may be what is being considered.

Lots of operators do not own lakefront... so changing the course of the lake quality would either be placing some restraints on them; or just focusing on shore front owners and placing severe restraints on them. Not exactly sure that is fair to the shore front owner.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

The DOS NH Boating Laws and Responsibilities Handbook states on Page 48...

Requirements Specific to Ski Craft.

It is illegal to operate a ''ski craft'' within a cove (a bay or inlet that does not exceed 1000 feet at its widest point) or within 300 feet of shore unless the ''ski craft'' is proceeding at headway speed directly to an area where ''ski craft'' operation is permitted.

So unless it is an old handbook on-line... the regulation is 300 feet from the shore. It is copyrighted 2022.

Moving all vessels to the 300 foot rule may be what is being considered.

Lots of operators do not own lakefront... so changing the course of the lake quality would either be placing some restraints on them; or just focusing on shore front owners and placing severe restraints on them. Not exactly sure that is fair to the shore front owner.

Exactly what I said John…”Ski craft” and “pwc” are different by definition…There are few “ski craft” produced/sold, an overwhelming majority are 3 seaters. Ski craft have the 300’ limitation only.

Are you even a boater or just a guy that likes to google?

[John Mercier]

I used to boat... and ride a Yamaha Waverunner.

The advent of the three-seater allowed more vessels to operate closer to shore.

Since they now are seeing bigger problems with nutrient erosion into the lakes... they want to stop that erosion.

So they are probably going to seek a reset...
Making the 300' rule on the ''ski craft'' doesn't seem to settle the problem from the lake side.

The other option is to go hard against the shore line owners... something that doesn't seem quite fair.

They obviously want to lower the incidence of blooms, more importantly keep them from expanding. Since the quality of the lakes effects all owners (residents), the means to achieve that in a balanced manner is what they are seeking.

I just don't think the precedent they set with defining a specific vessel (ski craft) and placing special restrictions on them is something they should keep doing. Set one standard for everyone.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

I used to boat... and ride a Yamaha Waverunner.

The advent of the three-seater allowed more vessels to operate closer to shore.
Since they now are seeing bigger problems with nutrient erosion into the lakes... they want to stop that erosion.
So they are probably going to seek a reset...Making the 300' rule on the ''ski craft'' doesn't seem to settle the problem from the lake side. The other option is to go hard against the shore line owners... something that doesn't seem quite fair. They obviously want to lower the incidence of blooms, more importantly keep them from expanding. Since the quality of the lakes effects all owners (residents), the means to achieve that in a balanced manner is what they are seeking. I just don't think the precedent they set with defining a specific vessel (ski craft) and placing special restrictions on them is something they should keep doing. Set one standard for everyone.

The shoreline suffers most in Spring.

The dam operators have the lake overfull for today's over-sized boats.

Against these wakes' erosion, I need a tight row of bollards; then maybe, a thick wall of large boulders to break up their wakes' powerful thrusting.

Is this allowed?

No...

[fatlazyless]

...... here's a waterfront erosion control fix from the big wakes for the waterfront home owner ........ www.slingbag.net/erosion.html ......

[camp guy]

I am sure people will think I've been smokin' too much wacky-tobaccy, but I have a really crazy idea: If boat operators exercised common sense and common courtesy, 99.9% of all these problems would vanish.

[tis]

Originally Posted by camp guy

I am sure people will think I've been smokin' too much wacky-tobaccy, but I have a really crazy idea: If boat operators exercised common sense and common courtesy, 99.9% of all these problems would vanish.

So true! I hate new rules and regulations, but unfortunately people don't have common sense and courtesy. But then what would the legislators do?

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by camp guy

I am sure people will think I've been smokin' too much wacky-tobaccy, but I have a really crazy idea: If boat operators exercised common sense and common courtesy, 99.9% of all these problems would vanish.

If love and kindness was practiced by everyone, we would never need rules and regulations, or police and prisons.
What planet might that be practiced on?

[The Real BigGuy]

Originally Posted by codeman671

It’s a feel-good law for those asking for change. Will it improve anything for those partaking in the sport? No, why would it? It just pushes them further into the more dangerous areas.

Will there be enforcement? Hell no. There aren’t enough resources to police it, just like the other laws on the books. Start with enforcing safe passage first. This will make the lake a safer place.

Amen!!


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[John Mercier]

They are focused on erosion.
And resources are easy to come by... that is why they make us register.

[BroadHopper]

https://newhampshirebulletin.com/bri...new-hampshire/

[Lakegeezer]

With NH legislature uninterested in doing something about wakeboat impact on water quality, rather than start a new thread, I'm posting a link to a recent study that strongly indicates that wakeboats are not good for the lake. Perhaps a new crop of lawmakers will take note some day.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/sport...g/77101300007/

[TiltonBB]

"Study on Connecticut lake documents greater environmental impacts of wake-enhanced boating
Wave energy, propeller downwash and sediment disturbance all greater than traditional motor boats"

It is interesting and enlightening to read a real study that was not sponsored by the Marine Manufacturers Association or endorsed by people with a financial interest in selling these boats.

It just tells us what many people already know.

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

"Study on Connecticut lake documents greater environmental impacts of wake-enhanced boating
Wave energy, propeller downwash and sediment disturbance all greater than traditional motor boats"

It is interesting and enlightening to read a real study that was not sponsored by the Marine Manufacturers Association or endorsed by people with a financial interest in selling these boats.

It just tells us what many people already know.

Enviromental issues will take a back seat for the foreseeable future. No one wants more Government control, they want less.

[fatlazyless]

The 400-seat N.H. House of Representatives, as of today, Friday, Jan 10, 2025, has 221-Republicans, 177-Democrats, one independent and one vacancy.

Every one of the 221-Republicans receives a two hundred dollar annual donation from the N.H.Marine Trades Assoc. ..... www.boatingnh.com .... in August every election year, every two years, that is typically used by these state reps to pay for election campaign signs. You know all those signs that you see along the roads while out driving in Sept-Oct-Nov ..... this is how the Republicans pay for their signs. State Reps are paid $100/two years and the Marine Trades Assoc donates $200 to state reps who it thinks will vote their way.

[ITD]

Much easier to blame waterfront owners for the problem.

[chachee52]

If you look at the study, one lake studied, the increased phosphorus levels were 20-26ft deep, and the lake depth was average 22 ft.
As a medical person, we always look at studies that can be repeated and not just one subject.
I'm not an expert, but I would say that most of Winni is a little deeper than that. So the only thing that Winni can take out of that is the wave height and distance, which there have been other studies about as well. Will the government here change a law on Winni just because of wave height. I doubt it.
Now to ban it on smaller lakes would make more sense to me. My friend lives on one of those smaller lakes with a ton of wake surfing boats and is 20 ft deep at best. That water is constantly nasty and that study should be relevant for that body of water.
Just another way to look at things.