No Wake

[The Real BigGuy]

I’m amazed (guess I shouldn’t be) at how many boats I see flaunting “No Wake” zones this early in the season. Today, going into no wake zone west of The Hole In The Wall I see 2 boats now up and plowing. I’m Orion for them to slow down and, apparently, I’m invisible because they look right thru me and keep on trucking.

I guess boneheads don’t die or fade away. They multiply!


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[JTA]

More and more people out there who don’t know what they’re doing.

[Weekend Pundit]

Yup, the Cap'n Boneheads will be out in force this summer...assuming they can afford the fuel.

[BroadHopper]

Outside of Glendale. No one is paying attention. Even the island residents and local fishermen. Going to get interesting!

[garysanfran]

Yesterday I was surprised to see a patrol boat near Stonedam Island with two officers fishing.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by garysanfran

Yesterday I was surprised to see a patrol boat near Stonedam Island with two officers fishing.

They must have been working undercover.

Or... Could it have been F & G or DES doing catch, TAG, and release?

[Descant]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Outside of Glendale. No one is paying attention. Even the island residents and local fishermen. Going to get interesting!

Often, when one state has a good idea and it has been implemented for awhile, other states follow suit. NH has had the 150' boat to boat rule for many years. As far as I know, it doesn't exist in 49 other states, and there is no push to copy. Hundredss of our 960 lakes are not routinely patrolled by MP, so the 150' rule doesn't apply there so much. MP will stop you when you come too close to them, but rarely when two other boats approach each other. Obviously, NWZ and related definitions are a continuing source of disagreement on this Forum. Is there a better way to deal with boats passing too close at speed? Is it really a problem? Only in NH but nowhere else? Be interesting to hear from those who do some boating in other states.

[John Mercier]

''Q. What is the speed limit for boating on lakes?

A. On lakes and ponds that allow for the use of motorized boats, vessels are not to exceed a speed of 5mph within the “Shoreline Safety Zone,” defined as the portion of the surface area of public waters within 200 feet of the shoreline. A "no-wake speed" is also required within 200 feet of marked swim areas and other vessels, including canoes and kayaks.''

https://dec.vermont.gov/watershed/la...c-waters-rules

[John Mercier]

''Operating at an excessive speed considering weather conditions, boat traffic, and other hazards. For inland waters, operating at a speed greater than 45 mph is considered negligent operation.''
''Operating at greater than headway speed (6 mph or less) within 150 feet of a swimmer, waterskier, mooring area, marina, boat launch, or when the operator's vision is obscured in any way.''

https://www.mass.gov/service-details...ng-law-summary


It takes a while... but it seems that the surrounding States are going toward the same restrictions. Most probably because the minority of the users that violate the rules often look for other outlets. So a problem that doesn't exist in an area, slowly becomes a problem... and then the rule gets adopted.

[chachee52]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

''Operating at an excessive speed considering weather conditions, boat traffic, and other hazards. For inland waters, operating at a speed greater than 45 mph is considered negligent operation.''
''Operating at greater than headway speed (6 mph or less) within 150 feet of a swimmer, waterskier, mooring area, marina, boat launch, or when the operator's vision is obscured in any way.''

https://www.mass.gov/service-details...ng-law-summary


It takes a while... but it seems that the surrounding States are going toward the same restrictions. Most probably because the minority of the users that violate the rules often look for other outlets. So a problem that doesn't exist in an area, slowly becomes a problem... and then the rule gets adopted.

I would say here on the Merrimack River in the Lowell area the last number of years it HAS been an issue with many accidents and deaths related to too close passage and too fast passage. Not not sure if you are being sarcastic? But it seems to be an issue. Also in some of the smaller lakes/ponds here on the border, I remember almost being hit while I was water skiing because a boat wanted to cut across and between me and the boat. Stupidity? Yes, but I think that the 150' rule is something that is needed around. And I agree, the small lakes/ponds don't get patrolled so it's a over looked.

[The Real BigGuy]

Originally Posted by Descant

Obviously, NWZ and related definitions are a continuing source of disagreement on this Forum.

There shouldn’t be any disagreement on the definition of what no wake means. From NH RSA 270-D:1 Definitions:

VI. "Headway speed" means the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way.

VIII. "No wake area" means an area where a boat is to be operated only at headway speed.



Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[The Real BigGuy]

The “North Carolina General Statute 75A-14.1 Lake Norman No-Wake Law”.

This law states as follows: “It is unlawful to operate a vessel at greater than no-wake speed within 50 yards of a vessel launching area, bridge, dock, pier, marina, vessel storage structure, or vessel service area on the waters of Lake Norman.”

“No-Wake speed” means idle speed or slow speed creating no appreciable wake.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[The Real BigGuy]

State of Washington
“Chapter 12.10
NO-WAKE ZONE

12.10.010 Definitions.
“Speed control area” means that portion of the jurisdictional waters of the town within 300 feet of the end of the docks and marked by speed control buoys.

“Wake” means any visible trail of turbulence that produces white water at the bow or stern left in the water by a watercraft or vessel. [Ord. 365 § 1, 2008]”

I think the idea that NH is the only state in the country with no wake or safe passage laws can safely be called fake news.



Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by Descant

Be interesting to hear from those who do some boating in other states.

Most summers I spend a little time in the Falmouth, Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket area. That area seems to be so wide open that boats just don't pass that close.

In Florida it is much different. Boats will routinely overtake you and pass 20 or 30 feet away. After spending most of my time on Winnipesaukee that is sometimes shocking. I have been thinking of putting a rear view mirror on the boat just so I am not surprised when it happens.

The safety factor is one aspect, because the boat passing has no idea if you will be turning or changing course at all. There is not a lot of time to react when two boats are that close. The second issue is the wake and spray from the passing boat. I often wonder it the boat operator going by gives that any thought at all. I think to do that to another boat is rude, but since it is done all the time in Florida it is just something you learn to accept.

Boating is very different when you get off the lake.

[8gv]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

Most summers I spend a little time in the Falmouth, Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket area. That area seems to be so wide open that boats just don't pass that close.

In Florida it is much different. Boats will routinely overtake you and pass 20 or 30 feet away. After spending most of my time on Winnipesaukee that is sometimes shocking. I have been thinking of putting a rear view mirror on the boat just so I am not surprised when it happens.

The safety factor is one aspect, because the boat passing has no idea if you will be turning or changing course at all. There is not a lot of time to react when two boats are that close. The second issue is the wake and spray from the passing boat. I often wonder it the boat operator going by gives that any thought at all. I think to do that to another boat is rude, but since it is done all the time in Florida it is just something you learn to accept.

Boating is very different when you get off the lake.

After years of acclimating to the NH 150' rule, boating in FL can be down right scary.

I had a guy pass my family and I in my 20' bow rider with his 30'+ center console in a narrow channel.

He was about twenty feet abeam of us running at the worst possible angle as he was climbing up on plane.

I am pretty sure he needed a distress flare suppository but that gear was stowed.

[BroadHopper]

https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/navR...n%20Rule%2028.

This should cover all 50 states. However states create their own rules clouding safe passage judgement among boaters. Why can't we just enforce rule 18 and another important Rule 20 "rules of the road".

https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/D...d%20necessary.

Enforce these rules and all should be fine!

[garysanfran]

Originally Posted by Descant

They must have been working undercover.

Or... Could it have been F & G or DES doing catch, TAG, and release?

Maybe. Two officers in the boat. One alternated between fishing and using binocs to scout other boats. I think they were scouting for violators. The boat was unmarked. Later they stopped an over crowded Whaler near Stonedam. They also seemed to spend a lot of time monitoring Sally's Gut...From a distance. Maybe placating the resident curmudgeon there.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy

There shouldn’t be any disagreement on the definition of what no wake means. From NH RSA 270-D:1 Definitions:

VI. "Headway speed" means the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way.

VIII. "No wake area" means an area where a boat is to be operated only at headway speed.

Hardly close on point. Everybody has NWZ close to shore, swim areas, etc etc. The point of the discussion was "Boat to Boat" an d the difficulty of enforcing it. Not that we expect MP to be stopping everybody who is a violator, but based on folks experience in other states. Unless I misread them, the quotes of various laws were not on point re: boat to boat.

[John Mercier]

A "no-wake speed" is also required within 200 feet of marked swim areas and other vessels, including canoes and kayaks.

Pretty sure that Vermont's ''other vessels'' includes boat-to-boat.

[The Real BigGuy]

Originally Posted by Descant

Hardly close on point. Everybody has NWZ close to shore, swim areas, etc etc. The point of the discussion was "Boat to Boat" an d the difficulty of enforcing it. Not that we expect MP to be stopping everybody who is a violator, but based on folks experience in other states. Unless I misread them, the quotes of various laws were not on point re: boat to boat.

I was responding to your comment regarding disagreement concerning the definition of No Wake. The definition, as published by the state is very clear!


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Descant]

Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy

I was responding to your comment regarding disagreement concerning the definition of No Wake. The definition, as published by the state is very clear!

Perhaps I should have used the word discussion instead of disagreement? Over the years there has been a lot of discussion. Some time ago, the definition was modified to add "6 mph" to allow for places where there are currents. in 2019, this was deleted and a new definition was passed by the legislature. Two years later, MP thought there was enough misunderstanding to cause them to publish this in 2021.

https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums...highlight=wake

[The Real BigGuy]

Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[XCR-700]

Ignoring no wake zones is clearly a problem, what I cant tell is if some boaters only think its there to buffer other boaters from waves causing them a potential loss of control, so they ignore it when there are no there are no pother boats, or do they know its also intended to protect property and just dont care???

As for the150' rule, I follow it because its the law, but in my mind its excessive and promotes incompetent boaters feeling comfortable on a busy lake, rather than inexperienced boaters building up their operation skills.

As stated previously in this thread; in other places you will have other boats passing by (in either direction) with as little as 20' - 30' feet of separation! I think 50' is a good reasonable number for any reasonably capable boater, but that just my opinion.

We now live in world of the nanny state of adjust and regulate to lowest possible skill set, and also the loudest voice, and there is no place for common sense or reasonable expectations and standards. So we will all have to learn to live with the loss of what was reasonable and accept the land of laws we have allowed to take over, where every aspect of life is regulated and taxed and monitored by someone. Sure glad I was able to see the world actually work in the 1960s and 70s so that I have a reality check on the media and political and other nonsense we all get barraged with every day.

Not the world I grew up in, and NOT better!

[SailinAway]

Originally Posted by XCR-700

As for the150' rule, I follow it because its the law, but in my mind its excessive . . . I think 50' is a good reasonable number for any reasonably capable boater, but that just my opinion.

50 feet is much too close to canoes and kayaks. I think a lot of people can't estimate 50 or 150 feet. By the time they slow down approaching a canoe or kayak, they've already caused waves that can upset a small craft. I try to avoid this by not paddling where there are motor boats and paddling defensively. I also carry an air horn.

[XCR-700]

Originally Posted by SailinAway

50 feet is much too close to canoes and kayaks. I think a lot of people can't estimate 50 or 150 feet. By the time they slow down approaching a canoe or kayak, they've already caused waves that can upset a small craft. I try to avoid this by not paddling where there are motor boats and paddling defensively. I also carry an air horn.

I totally agree!

Sorry I was referring to boats, as in power boats.

150' is probably a good number for sail boats, but may not even be enough for canoes and kayaks.

Sorry I should have been more clear.

We are on the same page for this, you should never be in a position to need an air horn due to a power boat coming too close, thats unthinkable if it was intentional.

Unfortunately there will always be the possibility of odd cases where if you are paddling a canoe or kayak, that you could become hidden from view of a power boat and there could be a close encounter, so I do understand the logic of having a horn.

ATB

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by SailinAway

50 feet is much too close to canoes and kayaks. I think a lot of people can't estimate 50 or 150 feet. By the time they slow down approaching a canoe or kayak, they've already caused waves that can upset a small craft. I try to avoid this by not paddling where there are motor boats and paddling defensively. I also carry an air horn.

We aren't going to go that way...
Far too many people of ''ill character'' that cannot be given the opportunity to be problematic.

We've clearly gone to boating licenses and restrictions on those operators that are too young to be licensed. We've made small moves toward non-residents having higher registration costs... much like other off-road recreational activities... and I suspect that power boaters will take the brunt of the latest economic situation.

[XCR-700]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

We aren't going to go that way...
Far too many people of ''ill character'' that cannot be given the opportunity to be problematic.

We've clearly gone to boating licenses and restrictions on those operators that are too young to be licensed. We've made small moves toward non-residents having higher registration costs... much like other off-road recreational activities... and I suspect that power boaters will take the brunt of the latest economic situation.

Not sure I understand much of this response.

Boating licenses do virtually nothing as no one has to demonstrative their actual ability to operate the boat, its just a education certificate, and even the proctored component is worthless as they accept licenses from other states proctored or not.

Meaningful boater safety only comes with experience. Anything else is superficial.

Not sure how the economy or other comments about character or "We aren't going to go that way..." quite fit in, but for the moment I'll simply assume they are meaningful to others.

[chachee52]

Originally Posted by SailinAway

I think a lot of people can't estimate 50 or 150 feet.

I can't agree more!! When I was taking the license course way back with it was actually in a class room, there was a sea captain that operated out Seabrook (if I remember correctly). The MP teaching had us go outside an walk 150' from the steps in front of the school we were at. He had measured before the class. The Sea Captain was 30ft at best, not exaggerating!!! He then argued that where he was doesn't need to obey the 150' rule because it was salt water/river inlet. The MP asked for his boat name and then said "well I'll make sure I let my friends know and they can pull you over and you can tell them that too and then they will give you your ticket".

[Hivolt]

Originally Posted by XCR-700

Ignoring no wake zones is clearly a problem, what I cant tell is if some boaters only think its there to buffer other boaters from waves causing them a potential loss of control, so they ignore it when there are no there are no pother boats, or do they know its also intended to protect property and just dont care???

As for the150' rule, I follow it because its the law, but in my mind its excessive and promotes incompetent boaters feeling comfortable on a busy lake, rather than inexperienced boaters building up their operation skills.

As stated previously in this thread; in other places you will have other boats passing by (in either direction) with as little as 20' - 30' feet of separation! I think 50' is a good reasonable number for any reasonably capable boater, but that just my opinion.

We now live in world of the nanny state of adjust and regulate to lowest possible skill set, and also the loudest voice, and there is no place for common sense or reasonable expectations and standards. So we will all have to learn to live with the loss of what was reasonable and accept the land of laws we have allowed to take over, where every aspect of life is regulated and taxed and monitored by someone. Sure glad I was able to see the world actually work in the 1960s and 70s so that I have a reality check on the media and political and other nonsense we all get barraged with every day.

Not the world I grew up in, and NOT better!

With the change in the "no wake" law from a set speed to the "slowest speed at which your vessel is under control". It's likely not worth issuing a ticket unless someone is clearly on plane.
The same goes for the 150' rule. Unless they are passing within a 150' buoy it's next to impossible to prove they were actually within 150' and anyone could go to court and contest and win both those cases.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by XCR-700

Not sure I understand much of this response.

Boating licenses do virtually nothing as no one has to demonstrative their actual ability to operate the boat, its just a education certificate, and even the proctored component is worthless as they accept licenses from other states proctored or not.

Meaningful boater safety only comes with experience. Anything else is superficial.

Not sure how the economy or other comments about character or "We aren't going to go that way..." quite fit in, but for the moment I'll simply assume they are meaningful to others.

Each up and down session results in an expansion and contraction of the higher cost recreational format. Boating licenses were prescribed as a means to overcome the bad behavior (ill character)... if they don't overcome the perception... which you, yourself, stated that they can't. The Legislature will be pushed by the general public to go further.

The further may be... we need more MP... so the cost of boating registrations must rise to offset the cost of more MP, higher fuel and equipment prices, etc.

Residents, that can vote, will not want higher registration costs... and one of the few places to look is non-residents using reciprocity.
Historically, this is how snowmobiling moved from several open states to having registration in each state be the requiem.

Now... if everyone was behaving gracefully... not much that anyone can complain about.

[XCR-700]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Now... if everyone was behaving gracefully... not much that anyone can complain about.

Well this a nice wish, and I hope to see it like that (again) on the lake, but I suspect it will get worse not better as the growth in Winnipesaukee boating continues.

Even if gas hits $10/gal and registration is $1000 I dont think we will see a significant change in behavior, as the troublesome types see to endure and the people that I share standards with tend to give up and move on.

We will see,,,

[John Mercier]

Quite plausible.

It seems our political system favors raising registrations and adding further regulation to offset problems rather than just placing heavy fines and penalties on the act at the get-go and nipping the problems early.

[Weekend Pundit]

Originally Posted by SailinAway

I think a lot of people can't estimate 50 or 150 feet.

I try to gauge distance by the number of boat lengths, in this case multiples of my boat's length (20 feet). I find it easier to guesstimate 150 feet (7-1/2 boat lengths). A couple times I borrowed a rangefinder to find out how close I came to guesstimating distance between my boat and another boat, a dock, a buoy, a shoreline, or some other object. I think worst case I was off by about 30 feet at 150 feet (I guessed 120 feet). Conditions at the time threw off my guess, but better I underestimate the distance rather than the other way around. Generally I was with 15 feet out to about 200 feet. After that I my error expanded quickly.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by Weekend Pundit

I try to gauge distance by the number of boat lengths, in this case multiples of my boat's length (20 feet). I find it easier to guesstimate 150 feet (7-1/2 boat lengths). A couple times I borrowed a rangefinder to find out how close I came to guesstimating distance between my boat and another boat, a dock, a buoy, a shoreline, or some other object. I think worst case I was off by about 30 feet at 150 feet (I guessed 120 feet). Conditions at the time threw off my guess, but better I underestimate the distance rather than the other way around. Generally I was with 15 feet out to about 200 feet. After that I my error expanded quickly.

Good info.
Going in and out of various public docks, I was taught to use a fixture on shore, e.g. a boat house, as my reference. Usually, it was more like 300-400 feet. No problem, and we needed the extra time to determine which dock to head for in, say, Meredith or Wolfeboro.

Watch. For the most part the larger the boat the farther out they slow down or accelerate going out. The smaller the boat, the more likely they are to try to scoot past others to get to the dock, violating the boat to shore safe passage as well as boat to boat. I'd love to have a dockmaster who would refuse these guys dockage and tell them to go out in the bay and start over: "You're number 12, and I'm watching". I'd rather see this than saddle MP with it, and I think it might be more effective without tickets, etc. Those guys bother me more than close passage in more open waters.

[tis]

Descant, then you would have to pay for docking to pay the harbormaster.

[TiltonBB]

No sense adding to the Police, Dockmaster, or Marine Patrol duties.

How about just a Social Worker to counsel them on their docking habits and tell them to try harder next time!

[Descant]

Tis: We have volunteers in Glendale. Works just fine, and the PD backs them up with a substation at the docks. Wolfeboro PD monitors the docks for extended overtime parking. Wouldn't take much to extend their activity a little. Taxpayers who are willing to pay for public docks should want to have them well operated to maximize benefit to merchants and residents alike.

[Weekend Pundit]

Originally Posted by tis

Descant, then you would have to pay for docking to pay the harbormaster.

Find a couple of surly curmudgeons with nothing better to do. It lets them put the "young whippersnappers" in their place, gets people unwilling to take any guff from the Cap'n Boneheads in place, and provides better control of the no wake and docking situations.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Descant

Tis: We have volunteers in Glendale. Works just fine, and the PD backs them up with a substation at the docks. Wolfeboro PD monitors the docks for extended overtime parking. Wouldn't take much to extend their activity a little. Taxpayers who are willing to pay for public docks should want to have them well operated to maximize benefit to merchants and residents alike.

I wonder how that will work long term... each municipality on the lake seems so different.
I haven't been around most... especially in recent years... but more docking traffic at Meredith seems to clash with the way Route 3 goes between the docks and most of the merchants. While the Weirs had Route 3 further from the waterfront, but is - at least according to reports and what I see being purchased - in a refurbish mode.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by Weekend Pundit

Find a couple of surly curmudgeons with nothing better to do. It lets them put the "young whippersnappers" in their place, gets people unwilling to take any guff from the Cap'n Boneheads, and provides better control of the no wake and docking situations.

Exactly right. I bet they'd even buy their own whistle and clipboard. "We're gonna take names and kick ass." Gunnery Sergeant Walker. June 10, 1970 NAS Pensacola. LOL

[gillygirl]

Originally Posted by Descant

Tis: We have volunteers in Glendale. Works just fine, and the PD backs them up with a substation at the docks. Wolfeboro PD monitors the docks for extended overtime parking. Wouldn't take much to extend their activity a little. Taxpayers who are willing to pay for public docks should want to have them well operated to maximize benefit to merchants and residents alike.

As of a few years ago, they were paid employees, not volunteers. Perhaps that has changed. The only volunteers I saw were on weekends questioning people launching their boats about where it had been, checking for invasive species.


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Descant]

Originally Posted by gillygirl

As of a few years ago, they were paid employees, not volunteers. Perhaps that has changed. The only volunteers I saw were on weekends questioning people launching their boats about where it had been, checking for invasive species.

You're right, there's a mix. The Lake Hosts are joint project between NHLakes and DES. Some paid, some volunteers. As far back as the mid 60's the Town of Gilford PD had an officer on duty (Bert Shaughnessy). The point is, it is easily within possibility to have someone manage these "impossible" issues.

[steve-on-mark]

I had my first experience in the new nwz saturday ... coming from Mt. View over to Glendale, I slowed down to headway speed and was promptly passed rapidly from behind by two boats ( one on either side ). Oh well...

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by steve-on-mark

I had my first experience in the new nwz saturday ... coming from Mt. View over to Glendale, I slowed down to headway speed and was promptly passed rapidly from behind by two boats ( one on either side ). Oh well...

All weekend! Boaters ignore the NWZ. Same as the NWZ between Eagle and Governors. Guess they think MP is only seasonal.

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by Descant

Exactly right. I bet they'd even buy their own whistle and clipboard. "We're gonna take names and kick ass." Gunnery Sergeant Walker. June 10, 1970 NAS Pensacola. LOL

Ah yes, Aviation Officer Candidate School. Staff Sergeant Snow, USMC, class 06-87. Good times.

[tis]

MP is not the same since the SP took over. I am very disappointed.

[steve-on-mark]

Originally Posted by tis

MP is not the same since the SP took over. I am very disappointed.

On the flip side of that coin...many years ago we were renting a slip at Fays, and one day I was coming in with the pontoon. I was pulled over just before I got to the mooring field there by MP, who told me " one of your bow numbers is faded...go to Fays and get a new number...NOW!" The curious onlookers at the marina had a good laugh after I told them what I'd done wrong! I also remember being stopped a few times for " equipment checks".

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

[Excalibur]

OMG, I cant believe the signage at this NEW NO WAKE Zone !!

Shame on the Marine Patrol !!!

You need binoculars at 50 feet to read the NO Wake on a look a like lighted buoy like marker.

You have no idea where the zone begins or ends ?

What kind of signage is this.. a brand NEW no wake zone that's not on any of the charts yet.. and they put a sign you couldn't read unless you where 20ft away from and is way out of position.

What Happen to the big NO WAKE buoy and signs of the past?

I can see everyone not seeing that buoy and going through at full speed like past seasons as a shortcut down the lake to Alton.

The buoy on that side isn't even near the middle at all, its way off to the shore on the right, where no one comes from..

[Weekend Pundit]

I launched my boat at Glendale early yesterday evening (6:30PM) and neither I or my son saw one of the new NWZ buoys until we were on top of it. (I took a slight 'detour' around Locke's Island before heading into Smith Cove to dock my boat. So sue me.)

I have to agree that they need to be better placed, i.e. more visible. Otherwise a lot of boaters will unknowingly violate No Wake. I'd hate to think they'll be ticketed because of the poor marking of the NWZ.

[chachee52]

Went through that area today. Agreed, the buoy on the southeast side is just one along Lock Island, they need a second one on the land side. So really not sure where it starts coming from the broads, the two on the Northwest side are clear and makes sense.
Hopefully they will fix that up soon.