Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Winnipesaukee Forums > General Discussion
Home Forums Gallery YouTube Channel Classifieds Links Blogs Calendar Register FAQDonate Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-06-2018, 12:53 PM   #1
Lake Winnipesaukee Assoc
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Meredith
Posts: 7
Thanks: 0
Thanked 14 Times in 2 Posts
Default Photos of Erosion and Other Ills

As those who attended our recent "How's Lake Winnipesaukee Water Quality?" know, we have undertaken a lake-wide analysis to understand all of the sources of phosphorous and other contaminants flowing into the lake. These issues are driving up milfoil, algae, and other plant growth; reducing the clarity, and generally threatening the water quality of our beautiful lake. http://www.winnipesaukee.org/wp-cont...ty-7-21-18.pdf

An important part of this work is identifying phosphorous "hotspots"--areas where untreated water or dirt flow directly into the lake, or into streams, culverts and other structures that eventually feed into the lake. You can imagine that Winnipesaukee is at the bottom of a bowl collecting all of the rainwater and contaminants flowing in from the sides of the surrounding towns--its watershed area.

WE NEED YOUR HELP! If you see areas of erosion along the shore, or apparently untreated water flowing into the lake, failing septics or other treatment facilities, or damaged roadside culverts (even a mile away) that do not seem to be doing their job--PLEASE SEND US PHOTOS with location and date. We will use these photos as part of our analysis to identify areas that need mitigation.

Photos may also be posted on this thread for purposes of discussion and education. If you have photos they may be embarrassing to an individual, please don't post them in a way that would embarrass. Just send them to our address and we will reach out to that individual in private.

Email address is mail@winnipesaukee.org

Thanks!
__________________
The Lake Winnipesaukee Association (LWA) is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the water quality and natural resources of Lake Winnipesaukee and its watershed. Through monitoring, education, stewardship, and science guided approaches for lake management, LWA works to ensure Winnipesaukee’s scenic beauty, wildlife habitat, water quality and recreational potential continues to provide enjoyment long into the future.

http://www.winnipesaukee.org/
http://winnipesaukeegateway.org/
Lake Winnipesaukee Assoc is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Lake Winnipesaukee Assoc For This Useful Post:
ApS (08-06-2018), BroadHopper (08-07-2018), CTYankee (08-06-2018), Flylady (08-09-2018), Grant (08-10-2018), mishman (08-12-2018), Rattlesnake Gal (08-14-2018), SAB1 (08-06-2018), Slickcraft (08-06-2018), The Winster (08-06-2018), welch100 (08-13-2018), Whimsey (08-12-2018)
Old 08-06-2018, 03:18 PM   #2
swnoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 136
Thanks: 17
Thanked 35 Times in 26 Posts
Default

Maybe the solution is to assess all waterfront homes and camps in NH a special pollution assessment fee each year which can be used to mitigate problems.
swnoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2018, 03:24 PM   #3
Seaplane Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 805
Thanks: 271
Thanked 397 Times in 159 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swnoel View Post
Maybe the solution is to assess all waterfront homes and camps in NH a special pollution assessment fee each year which can be used to mitigate problems.
And in turn, waterfront property owners should assess the State of NH for the aggressive erosion and loss of property due to the excessive wave action caused by the lake that belongs to the State. The State, in turn, can assess the boat owners who use the lake that belongs to the State by means of a special fee tied to the boat registrations.
Seaplane Pilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2018, 04:07 PM   #4
SAB1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Rowley MA / Tuftonboro
Posts: 604
Thanks: 78
Thanked 131 Times in 97 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swnoel View Post
Maybe the solution is to assess all waterfront homes and camps in NH a special pollution assessment fee each year which can be used to mitigate problems.
So waterfront owners that are doing things correctly are to pay a fee for those that are not?

As I said at the meeting its really time for the State to step up and do more. They could easily reduce the number of trees people are allowed to cut when clearing lots which helps reduce erosion. Within a radius of say 10 miles around a lake they should only allow stores to sell Phosphorus free fertilizers or at least offer phosphorus free fertilizer and have posted signage encouraging its use and impacts of not using it. The LWA is doing great things but they certainly need a bit more help.
SAB1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2018, 04:16 PM   #5
barefootbay
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 233
Thanks: 15
Thanked 46 Times in 39 Posts
Default

Unfortunately we are a tourist driven economy and until it’s too late and or the tourists stop coming nothing of a major nature will mandated.
barefootbay is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 08-06-2018, 05:20 PM   #6
ITD
Senior Member
 
ITD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Massachusetts and Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,256
Thanks: 327
Thanked 410 Times in 235 Posts
Default

I saw a river of brown water head for the lake in Saturday's downpour, all I could think is that isn't good.

I really get a kick out of posts that want to tax waterfront owners for problems that mostly come from off the lake...…. don't Mass. it up.
ITD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2018, 05:43 PM   #7
loonguy
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Moultonborough near the Loon Center
Posts: 46
Thanks: 15
Thanked 12 Times in 6 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot View Post
And in turn, waterfront property owners should assess the State of NH for the aggressive erosion and loss of property due to the excessive wave action caused by the lake that belongs to the State. The State, in turn, can assess the boat owners who use the lake that belongs to the State by means of a special fee tied to the boat registrations.
Indeed, from a lay person's perspective the erosion caused by waves created by high wake watercraft would seem to be the major contributor to this problem.
loonguy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2018, 06:38 PM   #8
Lake Winnipesaukee Assoc
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Meredith
Posts: 7
Thanks: 0
Thanked 14 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Seaplane Pilot /ITD--aggressive erosion and rivers of brown water are exactly what we're looking for. Please send photos with locations and dates if you have them. If you do not have photos, locations alone are helpful--we can photograph next time we're in the area. The email address from the original post or a PM are fine if you don't want specifics on this board.

Thanks
__________________
The Lake Winnipesaukee Association (LWA) is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the water quality and natural resources of Lake Winnipesaukee and its watershed. Through monitoring, education, stewardship, and science guided approaches for lake management, LWA works to ensure Winnipesaukee’s scenic beauty, wildlife habitat, water quality and recreational potential continues to provide enjoyment long into the future.

http://www.winnipesaukee.org/
http://winnipesaukeegateway.org/
Lake Winnipesaukee Assoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2018, 07:52 PM   #9
LoveLakeLife
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 28
Thanks: 6
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

The water past the bridge at Silver Sands is as brown as brown can be. It looks like the Mekong Delta.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
LoveLakeLife is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to LoveLakeLife For This Useful Post:
FlyingScot (08-06-2018)
Old 08-06-2018, 07:55 PM   #10
TheProfessor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 448
Thanks: 16
Thanked 120 Times in 73 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LoveLakeLife View Post
The water past the bridge at Silver Sands is as brown as brown can be. It looks like the Mekong Delta.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
Please don't disparage the Mekong River.
TheProfessor is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to TheProfessor For This Useful Post:
KPW (08-07-2018)
Old 08-06-2018, 07:57 PM   #11
TheProfessor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 448
Thanks: 16
Thanked 120 Times in 73 Posts
Default

Also best check up on what rivers and lakes feed the big lake.
TheProfessor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2018, 08:43 PM   #12
SAB1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Rowley MA / Tuftonboro
Posts: 604
Thanks: 78
Thanked 131 Times in 97 Posts
Default

From the presentation at the meeting it seemed as though they had a pretty good idea of major tributaries flowing into the lake and the quality of that water. It was these secondary flows they are after. Pretty neat how they have been able to divert the source into a catch basin area and then put plantings on top of it to use the water below.
SAB1 is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SAB1 For This Useful Post:
ApS (08-06-2018), loonguy (08-06-2018)
Old 08-06-2018, 09:45 PM   #13
Lakeboater
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 310
Thanks: 11
Thanked 92 Times in 66 Posts
Default State DOT

Wasn't it the NH DOT that tore apart a dam on Rte 11 by Loon Cove that filled the cove with silt, leaves, sand and other debris
Lakeboater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2018, 10:30 PM   #14
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,047
Thanks: 715
Thanked 351 Times in 257 Posts
Arrow This Weekend, While Birding...

Quote:
Originally Posted by LoveLakeLife View Post
The water past the bridge at Silver Sands is as brown as brown can be. It looks like the Mekong Delta.
Boats stored in that area can be identified by a deep brown stain below the waterline. But the water is clear, right? A dark stain in the water is an indication of water flowing through forest leaves. (and not so much, pine needles).

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAB1 View Post
From the presentation at the meeting it seemed as though they had a pretty good idea of major tributaries flowing into the lake and the quality of that water. It was these secondary flows they are after. Pretty neat how they have been able to divert the source into a catch basin area and then put plantings on top of it to use the water below.
After viewing extensive new "catchbasinery" along central Florida highways, I've done the same with my Wolfeboro driveway, adding two catch basins using a rented Kubota. Hilly New Hampshire roadways—and there are many—are begging for the same treatment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swnoel View Post
Maybe the solution is to assess all waterfront homes and camps in NH a special pollution assessment fee each year which can be used to mitigate problems.
According to a local resident, a simple test kit (think litmus test) is available from local water quality sources that tests lake water for biological contaminants. A single lot can be (and was) identified as the polluter.

.
__________________
.Sailing—Good for you and good for the world...

Last edited by ApS; 08-07-2018 at 06:22 AM. Reason: Add last sentence and Kubota link
ApS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2018, 10:40 PM   #15
LoveLakeLife
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 28
Thanks: 6
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

I wasn’t disparaging the Mekong River. I think it’s been brown for decades. The lake isn’t supposed to be brown.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
LoveLakeLife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2018, 08:00 PM   #16
Flylady
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: So. California & Lakes Region
Posts: 184
Thanks: 102
Thanked 51 Times in 24 Posts
Default Lake Pollution Solutions

My sister lives on a smaller lake in the area. They have better water however the Lakes have been testing water for many years and watching the decline due to lack of enforcement and remediation of shoreline area erosion. Many of their neighbors received assistance in correction the erosion problems from a Group called AWWA. Action Wakefield Water Association? Interested people may want to reach out to this group for more info.
Flylady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2018, 11:15 PM   #17
Lake Winnipesaukee Assoc
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Meredith
Posts: 7
Thanks: 0
Thanked 14 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LoveLakeLife View Post
The water past the bridge at Silver Sands is as brown as brown can be. It looks like the Mekong Delta.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
We are aware of the dirt or debris flowing into the lake near Silver Sands, and we have tried to track the source. So far, no luck, but we will keep looking. If anyone knows the area especially well and has an idea where the dirt or debris might be coming from, please PM us and we will investigate.

Once we identify the source we can develop a mitigation plan. Thanks
__________________
The Lake Winnipesaukee Association (LWA) is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the water quality and natural resources of Lake Winnipesaukee and its watershed. Through monitoring, education, stewardship, and science guided approaches for lake management, LWA works to ensure Winnipesaukee’s scenic beauty, wildlife habitat, water quality and recreational potential continues to provide enjoyment long into the future.

http://www.winnipesaukee.org/
http://winnipesaukeegateway.org/
Lake Winnipesaukee Assoc is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lake Winnipesaukee Assoc For This Useful Post:
Grant (08-10-2018), Lakegeezer (08-12-2018)
Old 08-11-2018, 12:20 PM   #18
tummyman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 370
Thanks: 47
Thanked 283 Times in 87 Posts
Default

If you live in Moultonborough and have been doing the right thing to prevent erosion by having some stone placed at the bank, you are now getting taxed on your property taxes for doing the right thing as a special assessment. With all the wake boats causing huge waves, they town now has found yet another way to adversely impact lakefront owners. Sad.......
tummyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2018, 04:47 PM   #19
Greene's Basin Girl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 1,491
Thanks: 391
Thanked 512 Times in 260 Posts
Default

The wake boats are terrible. We have one wake boat that is located in Green's basin, but we have several boats that just come into Green's Basin. They wake board for hours. It is so annoying, as we watch our shoreline erode. They need to be out in a larger area. The waves are way too big. The rap music playing is also very loud.

I think changes will be happening in the next few years in regard to the wake board boat waves in small areas.
Greene's Basin Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Greene's Basin Girl For This Useful Post:
BoatHouse (08-13-2018), loonguy (08-12-2018)
Old 08-12-2018, 09:42 PM   #20
tummyman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 370
Thanks: 47
Thanked 283 Times in 87 Posts
Default

Same thing happens in Blackey Cove. Huge waves, lots of erosion. Boats arrive from other areas to plague the cove.
tummyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2018, 06:06 AM   #21
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,047
Thanks: 715
Thanked 351 Times in 257 Posts
Arrow Invasion from the Wal-Mart Side...

Quote:
Originally Posted by tummyman View Post
Same thing happens in Blackey Cove. Huge waves, lots of erosion. Boats arrive from other areas to plague the cove.
We're not the "Quiet Side" of the lake any longer.

>
__________________
.Sailing—Good for you and good for the world...
ApS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2018, 07:25 AM   #22
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,094
Thanks: 378
Thanked 650 Times in 449 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApS View Post
We're not the "Quiet Side" of the lake any longer.

>
We're still quieter than the other side of the lake!!!
tis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2018, 07:40 AM   #23
rsmlp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 314
Thanks: 3
Thanked 76 Times in 36 Posts
Default the lake

Considering how popular and busy the lake is, I'd say it is doing quite well. It is inevitable that erosion happens with more people. Not suggesting complacency but rather understanding the forces the lake is up against.

Taxing homeowners who own shoreline may be the dumbest idea put forward but it classically "progressive". If you're going to tax shoreline owners then you must tax island owners also. Let's make everyone suffer!
rsmlp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2018, 09:24 AM   #24
Little Bear
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 430
Thanks: 62
Thanked 129 Times in 77 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rsmlp View Post
Considering how popular and busy the lake is, I'd say it is doing quite well. It is inevitable that erosion happens with more people. Not suggesting complacency but rather understanding the forces the lake is up against.

Taxing homeowners who own shoreline may be the dumbest idea put forward but it classically "progressive". If you're going to tax shoreline owners then you must tax island owners also. Let's make everyone suffer!
Aren't island property owners also shoreline property owners for the most part?
Little Bear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2018, 12:49 PM   #25
paintitredinHC
Member
 
paintitredinHC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 41
Thanks: 29
Thanked 17 Times in 11 Posts
Default Careful Now...

I'll summarize...

https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums...6&postcount=27

https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums...9&postcount=63

https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums...23&postcount=5

I guess I'll have to keep a close eye on these proposed 'changes'...

Education, not regulation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greene's Basin Girl View Post
The wake boats are terrible. We have one wake boat that is located in Green's basin, but we have several boats that just come into Green's Basin. They wake board for hours. It is so annoying, as we watch our shoreline erode. They need to be out in a larger area. The waves are way too big. The rap music playing is also very loud.

I think changes will be happening in the next few years in regard to the wake board boat waves in small areas.
paintitredinHC is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2018, 04:04 PM   #26
rsmlp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 314
Thanks: 3
Thanked 76 Times in 36 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Bear View Post
Aren't island property owners also shoreline property owners for the most part?

Well yes, that's the point.
rsmlp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2018, 05:12 PM   #27
FlyingScot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 365
Thanks: 123
Thanked 60 Times in 46 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paintitredinHC View Post
I'll summarize...

https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums...6&postcount=27

https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums...9&postcount=63

https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums...23&postcount=5

I guess I'll have to keep a close eye on these proposed 'changes'...

Education, not regulation.
Your posts seem so reasonable and thorough, but than I get to the part where 150' is enough for wakes to dissipate, and all of your credibility vanishes.
FlyingScot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2018, 06:33 PM   #28
ursa minor
Senior Member
 
ursa minor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Tuftonborough & Franklin MA
Posts: 206
Thanks: 57
Thanked 105 Times in 43 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rsmlp View Post
Considering how popular and busy the lake is, I'd say it is doing quite well. It is inevitable that erosion happens with more people. Not suggesting complacency but rather understanding the forces the lake is up against.

Taxing homeowners who own shoreline may be the dumbest idea put forward but it classically "progressive". If you're going to tax shoreline owners then you must tax island owners also. Let's make everyone suffer!
Am I missing something? Are you implying that island property owners are not paying property taxes? I can assure you that's not the case. What islanders pay in taxes for seasonal use properties far outstrips what few services we receive from our respective towns. We certainly don't contribute to any more erosion or runoff than any other waterfront property or non property owning users of the lake. In fact, it's probably less as most of us have left our landscape in its natural state.

Again, I think I'm missing something in your post. Please explain your thoughts here.
__________________
" Any day with a boat ride in it is a good day"
ursa minor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2018, 08:11 AM   #29
rsmlp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 314
Thanks: 3
Thanked 76 Times in 36 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ursa minor View Post
Am I missing something? Are you implying that island property owners are not paying property taxes? I can assure you that's not the case. What islanders pay in taxes for seasonal use properties far outstrips what few services we receive from our respective towns. We certainly don't contribute to any more erosion or runoff than any other waterfront property or non property owning users of the lake. In fact, it's probably less as most of us have left our landscape in its natural state.

Again, I think I'm missing something in your post. Please explain your thoughts here.
You are def missing something and undoubtedly I was unclear. I was simply implying that island owners (almost all of whom are shoreline owners) have their property taxed raised along with the rest of us under the ODIOUS idea that anyone should have their taxes raised at all!

Sorry for the confusion. It was meant as a pun.
rsmlp is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to rsmlp For This Useful Post:
ursa minor (08-14-2018)
Old 08-14-2018, 10:46 AM   #30
Rattlesnake Gal
Senior Member
 
Rattlesnake Gal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Southern NH
Posts: 5,223
Thanks: 1,380
Thanked 1,315 Times in 461 Posts
Arrow Gunstock Brook - Look to the Past

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake Winnipesaukee Assoc View Post
We are aware of the dirt or debris flowing into the lake near Silver Sands, and we have tried to track the source. So far, no luck, but we will keep looking. If anyone knows the area especially well and has an idea where the dirt or debris might be coming from, please PM us and we will investigate.

Once we identify the source we can develop a mitigation plan. Thanks

Gunstock Brook - Look to the Past... In Adair Mulligan’s Gunstock Parish, she states that runoff from Gunstock Brook into Sander’s Bay is polluted from the tanneries that used to be up on the mountain. As recent as the late 90’s. Don’t have the book with me to give more info. The tanneries did so much polluting and there were lots of pits with nasty stuff in them. It is very plausible that heavy rain caused erosion upstream that may be the cause.

BTW, this book is phenomenal! Can be purchased at Thompson Ames Historical Society in Gilford. I wish she would write the history of all the towns around the lake!!!

Last edited by Rattlesnake Gal; 08-14-2018 at 12:09 PM.
Rattlesnake Gal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2018, 10:57 AM   #31
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 1,747
Thanks: 167
Thanked 1,153 Times in 423 Posts
Default

Well a more sensible approach to this would be to establish new rules in regards to ALL watersports that involve a towable and that is that this activity must be done no less than 500 or ever 750 feet off the nearest shore and the 150 foot rule applies thereafter far as keeping a safe distance from others underway.

Now in theory this should prevent the following:

Allowing far more distance for waves to settle and dissipate before hitting shore thus reducing the amount of shore erosion. No they will not fully dissipate but should be reduced. (some testing and observation should be done to establish a buffer sufficient to get the desired effect). Language should include no towing through NWZ or marked channels.


This applies to all boat types and towing a person(s) in general. Frankly I've witnessed to many people who are completely careless in where they choose to engage in skiing, tubing or wakeboarding, ESPECIALLY in tight areas where there is a lot of traffic.


Finally this would prevent this behavior in tight areas, coves etc... where it is an ongoing problem. Banning certain types of boats is not the answer nor is slapping a property tax increase on shorefront owners that have to already meet their obligations through the DES permitting process. While I'm sure the towns and state would love more tax revenues you can bet that additional money will do nothing to solve any problems.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2018, 12:18 PM   #32
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 1,747
Thanks: 167
Thanked 1,153 Times in 423 Posts
Default

Well a more sensible approach to this would be to establish new rules in regards to ALL watersports that involve the towable and that is that this activity must be done no less than 500 or ever 750 feet off the nearest shore and the 150 foot rule applies thereafter far as keeping a safe distance from others underway.

Now in theory this should prevent the following:

Allowing far more distance for waves to settle and dissipate before hitting shore thus reducing the amount of shore erosion. No they will not fully dissipate but should be reduced. (some testing and observation should be done to establish a buffer sufficient to get the desired effect). Language should include no towing through NWZ or marked channels.


This applies to all boat types and towing a person(s) in general. Frankly I've witnessed to many people who are completely careless in where they choose to engage in skiing, tubing or wakeboarding, ESPECIALLY in tight areas where there is a lot of traffic.


Finally this would prevent this behavior in tight areas, coves etc... where it is an ongoing problem. Banning certain types of boats is not the answer nor is slapping a property tax increase on shorefront owners that have to already meet their obligations through the DES permitting process. While I'm sure the towns and state would love more tax revenues you can bet that additional money will do nothing to solve any problems.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2018, 12:30 PM   #33
Hillcountry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: In the hills
Posts: 1,063
Thanks: 557
Thanked 187 Times in 122 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAXUM View Post
Well a more sensible approach to this would be to establish new rules in regards to ALL watersports that involve the towable and that is that this activity must be done no less than 500 or ever 750 feet off the nearest shore and the 150 foot rule applies thereafter far as keeping a safe distance from others underway.

Now in theory this should prevent the following:

Allowing far more distance for waves to settle and dissipate before hitting shore thus reducing the amount of shore erosion. No they will not fully dissipate but should be reduced. (some testing and observation should be done to establish a buffer sufficient to get the desired effect). Language should include no towing through NWZ or marked channels.


This applies to all boat types and towing a person(s) in general. Frankly I've witnessed to many people who are completely careless in where they choose to engage in skiing, tubing or wakeboarding, ESPECIALLY in tight areas where there is a lot of traffic.


Finally this would prevent this behavior in tight areas, coves etc... where it is an ongoing problem. Banning certain types of boats is not the answer nor is slapping a property tax increase on shorefront owners that have to already meet their obligations through the DES permitting process. While I'm sure the towns and state would love more tax revenues you can bet that additional money will do nothing to solve any problems.
Nice thought but what makes you think boat operators who ignore other laws (150’ or NWZ) on the lake will bother with new ones?
Hillcountry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2018, 12:35 PM   #34
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 1,747
Thanks: 167
Thanked 1,153 Times in 423 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hillcountry View Post
Nice thought but what makes you think boat operators who ignore other laws (150’ or NWZ) on the lake will bother with new ones?
They probably won't and no law is any good without enforcement, however minus any restriction there is nothing that can be done today.

That said - I'd rather have a useless law on the books than a useless tax I'm stuck having to pay as some have suggested. Either way it's a pat on the back to those that need to do "something" even if it's useless.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2018, 12:48 PM   #35
LIforrelaxin
Senior Member
 
LIforrelaxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island, not that one, the one on Winnipesaukee
Posts: 2,090
Thanks: 738
Thanked 569 Times in 302 Posts
Default

These threads always floor me....

Yes there is no doubt that wakeboard boats producing larger waves speeds up shoreline erosion... But is that the problem to go after?

People Altering the shoreline in my mind is the bigger problem, taking away the natural retaining structure that help re-enforce the shoreline... This why states like Maine have very strict rules on altering the shoreline which includes cutting down trees etc.

Unfortunately for Lake Winnipesaukee that damage has already been done. And unless the state makes all shore front owners plant a buffer of trees it isn't going to be corrected.

So what to do now?
-- Yes education on fertilizers which damage the lake.
-- Yes bring some of the larger lakefront home dirt roads under public road control, so that they can get improved drainage. ( note this may require purcahsing property as well, to make rain water storage area's)
-- Yes work on educating lake front home owners on planting a buffer down to the water's edge. (who knows may bring in some property tax incentives to do so)

The Damage is done.... to much development, and not enough control.... to think that targeting wakeboard boats, or crusiers etc. is the solution is just wrong... Let people enjoy the lake, the way they want.

Fix the problem by educating people...not with rules and regulations.

My property hasn't lost shoreline... in 30 years, I have wakeboarders etc all the time in front of my place... 3 neighbors enjoy this activity... How is this people may wonder... Well I let vegetation grow... I have several tree still along the shoreline... I haven't tried to alter the natural rocky transition from land to lake... etc. etc. etc. I educated myself... Yep I don't have a nice beach... but I would rather not... steps from my dock work just as well... I trim the tree branches up,so they don't effect my view and the trees can grow tall and strong....

Stop point fingers at classes of people and blaming them for the problem.... Start educating people, and the problem will start to solve itself.
__________________
Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island.....
LIforrelaxin is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to LIforrelaxin For This Useful Post:
iw8surf (08-14-2018), ursa minor (08-14-2018)
Old 08-14-2018, 01:56 PM   #36
iw8surf
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 11
Thanks: 4
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

With wake boats starting to consume the market for the average bow rider fan also you'll be seeing a lot more of those being sold. So rather than complaining and pointing fingers at those having fun we will have to get use to it.
iw8surf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2018, 02:06 PM   #37
kawishiwi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 360
Thanks: 134
Thanked 83 Times in 55 Posts
Default Isn't that exactly...

Quote:
Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin View Post
Stop point fingers at classes of people and blaming them for the problem.... Start educating people, and the problem will start to solve itself.
...what you did here?
kawishiwi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2018, 03:38 PM   #38
paintitredinHC
Member
 
paintitredinHC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 41
Thanks: 29
Thanked 17 Times in 11 Posts
Default Honestly

Honestly, this rule would be established over my dead body. I would quit my regular job, relocate full-time to the lake, get part-time work at Aubuchon Hardware, and lobby against this rule as my full-time job.

Such a rule would effectively render the cove I live in off-limits for watersports. For my family, a foundational element for deciding where we chose on the lake is predicated on the fact that it is ideal for watersports. My unborn children and their children will be slalom waterskiing in that cove.

I would also argue that creating such a rule would subsequently reduce the value (both intrinsically and extrinsically) of our home, thus equally deleterious as the waves crashing ashore.

As for 150 feet not being enough space for a wake to dissipate to a reasonable size (from a boat traveling in a straight line), I will need to see demonstrable scientific evidence that suggests such a wave is causing undue erosion. Even then, this does not take into account other mitigating factors that subject one particular piece of shore less susceptible to erosion (as noted by other posters on this forum).

I should add that as far as I know, both the skier and the boat must be 150 feet from shore. Meaning, the boat already has to be at least 215 feet from shore.

I suggest we figure out some other solution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAXUM View Post
Well a more sensible approach to this would be to establish new rules in regards to ALL watersports that involve a towable and that is that this activity must be done no less than 500 or ever 750 feet off the nearest shore and the 150 foot rule applies thereafter far as keeping a safe distance from others underway.
paintitredinHC is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to paintitredinHC For This Useful Post:
FlyingScot (08-15-2018), iw8surf (08-15-2018)
Old 08-15-2018, 10:46 AM   #39
SIKSUKR
Senior Member
 
SIKSUKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,034
Thanks: 215
Thanked 891 Times in 503 Posts
Default

Not to drag up a heated GFBL debate again but I wonder if those that were so against these "big ocean boats" causing damage to the lake are happier with the rise in "Go Slow Big Wave" boats which constantly circle about in the same areas. Seems that the GFBL boat has way less impact as it pretty much goes from point "a" to "B". FWIW
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2018, 10:52 AM   #40
iw8surf
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 11
Thanks: 4
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SIKSUKR View Post
Not to drag up a heated GFBL debate again but I wonder if those that were so against these "big ocean boats" causing damage to the lake are happier with the rise in "Go Slow Big Wave" boats which constantly circle about in the same areas. Seems that the GFBL boat has way less impact as it pretty much goes from point "a" to "B". FWIW
People who circle towing any watersport don't know what they are doing. Pick a line and go straight! And NO powerturns
iw8surf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2018, 04:06 PM   #41
FlyingScot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 365
Thanks: 123
Thanked 60 Times in 46 Posts
Default

Oops. Did not mean to thank you for post, but did mean to respond. Setting aside the hyperbole--at least one of us continues to be challenged by math--how do you get that the boat needs to be 215' from shore?

Quote:
Originally Posted by paintitredinHC View Post

I should add that as far as I know, both the skier and the boat must be 150 feet from shore. Meaning, the boat already has to be at least 215 feet from shore.
FlyingScot is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to FlyingScot For This Useful Post:
paintitredinHC (08-15-2018)
Old 08-15-2018, 04:30 PM   #42
sky's
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 152
Thanks: 32
Thanked 26 Times in 19 Posts
Default

hopefully the "lake front owners" dont get too mad you guys pay my property taxes. thank you
sky's is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2018, 06:56 PM   #43
paintitredinHC
Member
 
paintitredinHC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 41
Thanks: 29
Thanked 17 Times in 11 Posts
Default Math???

Pete -

Well, you're welcome anyway I guess.

Setting aside the mutual snark -- and focusing on the pedantic --

I thought I'd save our compatriots by not going into the nuanced details of the math calculations, but alas, here we are.

A typical tow rope is 65 feet in length. Picture a boat towing a skier that is edging far off to the side of the boat, and said skier comes within 150 feet of shore -- they are in violation of the law. Therefore, a legal 150 feet plus 65 feet (of rope) equals 215 feet. I know, math is hard.

But, this gets more nuanced! This must drive you nuts, because none of this can possibly be nuanced. Black and white - amiright?! Please bare with me.

Sometimes I like to Wakeboard with more than 65 feet, because more line means more air-time on tricks (ugh... physics AND geometry). 75 feet bumps this math calculation to 225 feet! I'll admit, a calculator was used for this extrapolation.

Darn, sometimes I waterski at 55 feet because the water is flatter as I cross the wake on a slalom. I'm not even sure I can do all this math... Wake surfing you ask? There's no rope... but the rider is roughly 5-10 feet from the part of the boat with the spinny thing.

I just thought it'd be easier to just say an average of 215 feet than go into the pedantic details, but I totally get why I should have outlined my methodology beforehand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingScot View Post
Oops. Did not mean to thank you for post, but did mean to respond. Setting aside the hyperbole--at least one of us continues to be challenged by math--how do you get that the boat needs to be 215' from shore?

Last edited by paintitredinHC; 08-15-2018 at 07:03 PM. Reason: forgot to carry the 3....
paintitredinHC is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2018, 08:56 PM   #44
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 1,747
Thanks: 167
Thanked 1,153 Times in 423 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paintitredinHC View Post
Honestly, this rule would be established over my dead body. I would quit my regular job, relocate full-time to the lake, get part-time work at Aubuchon Hardware, and lobby against this rule as my full-time job.

Such a rule would effectively render the cove I live in off-limits for watersports. For my family, a foundational element for deciding where we chose on the lake is predicated on the fact that it is ideal for watersports. My unborn children and their children will be slalom waterskiing in that cove.

I would also argue that creating such a rule would subsequently reduce the value (both intrinsically and extrinsically) of our home, thus equally deleterious as the waves crashing ashore.

As for 150 feet not being enough space for a wake to dissipate to a reasonable size (from a boat traveling in a straight line), I will need to see demonstrable scientific evidence that suggests such a wave is causing undue erosion. Even then, this does not take into account other mitigating factors that subject one particular piece of shore less susceptible to erosion (as noted by other posters on this forum).

I should add that as far as I know, both the skier and the boat must be 150 feet from shore. Meaning, the boat already has to be at least 215 feet from shore.

I suggest we figure out some other solution.
So let me preface my response to this simply by saying I have no beef with ski boats, wakeboard boats or for that matter cigarette boats. To each his own is how I look at it, the lake is a public resource to be enjoyed by all so long as that enjoyment is not resulting in undo harm to the lake itself. Which brings us to the question at hand.

Now I may have not been completely clear in my posting so I will further stipulate that I agree with you in that the effects as they are caused by large wakes in various areas, in particular confined areas such as your cove as an example need to be looked at BEFORE anything should be enacted. Now I'm sure any observation of such activities may result in immediately jump to the conclusion that big waves are bad. I on the other hand agree with you that unless this can be proven to be a significant cause of shore erosion, steps taken (such as what I suggested) would, in theory mitigate that to some degree. HOWEVER I am no proponent no such restrictions should be put into place unless or until there is some fact behind it. We need not look to far back in history to see that facts take the back burner to emotion when it comes to pleading the case to do something, even if it's got no merit - AKA the speed limit law. It is clear at least to me that law was put into place squarely to curb the use of cigarette boats in the name of "safety".

So if you think about it - what could happen as possible solutions? Well I can see the B(an) word coming up, turning more areas - including your cove into an overnight NWZ, or who knows what else. So pick your poison I guess.

Just as a casual observer it's hard to imagine the wakes thrown by wakeboard boats aren't having some effect. I mean common let's be honest here. To what extent is really the question that needs to be answered. I think it completely ludicrous to turn a blind eye to at least the possibility. That said, the overall effects may very well be way overstated and hey not for nothing, could be found to have little impact. Of course not any particular shore line is identical and of course there are many variables to consider. I just happen to be of the opinion at this time to flat out say there is no impact, at the same time I equally roll my eyes at this being a huge problem and the main culprit to all the shoreline erosion problems as well. A contributor, maybe, but that's where a little more data is needed.

Just keep one thing in mind. As these boats, and the wake surfing activity as a whole becomes more popular more casual observers, especially those that don't like it will question the effects of it expressly for the purposes of trying to stop it.

Till then enjoy your surfing responsibly
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to MAXUM For This Useful Post:
paintitredinHC (Today)
Old 08-15-2018, 09:19 PM   #45
ITD
Senior Member
 
ITD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Massachusetts and Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,256
Thanks: 327
Thanked 410 Times in 235 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paintitredinHC View Post
Pete -

Well, you're welcome anyway I guess.

Setting aside the mutual snark -- and focusing on the pedantic --

I thought I'd save our compatriots by not going into the nuanced details of the math calculations, but alas, here we are.

A typical tow rope is 65 feet in length. Picture a boat towing a skier that is edging far off to the side of the boat, and said skier comes within 150 feet of shore -- they are in violation of the law. Therefore, a legal 150 feet plus 65 feet (of rope) equals 215 feet. I know, math is hard.

But, this gets more nuanced! This must drive you nuts, because none of this can possibly be nuanced. Black and white - amiright?! Please bare with me.

Sometimes I like to Wakeboard with more than 65 feet, because more line means more air-time on tricks (ugh... physics AND geometry). 75 feet bumps this math calculation to 225 feet! I'll admit, a calculator was used for this extrapolation.

Darn, sometimes I waterski at 55 feet because the water is flatter as I cross the wake on a slalom. I'm not even sure I can do all this math... Wake surfing you ask? There's no rope... but the rider is roughly 5-10 feet from the part of the boat with the spinny thing.

I just thought it'd be easier to just say an average of 215 feet than go into the pedantic details, but I totally get why I should have outlined my methodology beforehand.
Yeah, 150 feet or 215 feet is not enough distance to take the power out of those boat wakes. It's amazing the power of those waves from a quarter mile away hitting the shore.
ITD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 07:49 AM   #46
The Real BigGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 264
Thanks: 5
Thanked 79 Times in 47 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paintitredinHC View Post
Pete -

Well, you're welcome anyway I guess.

Setting aside the mutual snark -- and focusing on the pedantic --

I thought I'd save our compatriots by not going into the nuanced details of the math calculations, but alas, here we are.

A typical tow rope is 65 feet in length. Picture a boat towing a skier that is edging far off to the side of the boat, and said skier comes within 150 feet of shore -- they are in violation of the law. Therefore, a legal 150 feet plus 65 feet (of rope) equals 215 feet. I know, math is hard.

But, this gets more nuanced! This must drive you nuts, because none of this can possibly be nuanced. Black and white - amiright?! Please bare with me.

Sometimes I like to Wakeboard with more than 65 feet, because more line means more air-time on tricks (ugh... physics AND geometry). 75 feet bumps this math calculation to 225 feet! I'll admit, a calculator was used for this extrapolation.

Darn, sometimes I waterski at 55 feet because the water is flatter as I cross the wake on a slalom. I'm not even sure I can do all this math... Wake surfing you ask? There's no rope... but the rider is roughly 5-10 feet from the part of the boat with the spinny thing.

I just thought it'd be easier to just say an average of 215 feet than go into the pedantic details, but I totally get why I should have outlined my methodology beforehand.


Hate to get “snarky” about you math but, there ain’t no way you ski/wakeboard 90 degrees perpendicular to your boat transom. If you did you’d be somewhere else making $ on the pro circuit. So you can’t add rope length to 150 to come up with distances. Plus who says all wake boats observe the “legal” 150 distance.

That said I agree something has to be done. Probably should start with people showing less concern for what makes them happy and more concern for how their actions effect others.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
The Real BigGuy is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to The Real BigGuy For This Useful Post:
BoatHouse (Yesterday), thinkxingu (Yesterday)
Old Yesterday, 09:32 AM   #47
FlyingScot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 365
Thanks: 123
Thanked 60 Times in 46 Posts
Default

I was not being snarky. I do not ski or board, so I thought there might be something about the math. Based on your message below, it is clear that you do not understand the math in two important ways.

First, if the legal requirement for boats is 150', then a skier, no matter how long his tow rope, can ski 150' from shore if he is directly behind the boat and the line is parallel to shore. So let's drop the 225' claim.

Second, and more importantly, as pointed out by ITD, 1/4 mile is a better estimate of how far these wakes extend.




Quote:
Originally Posted by paintitredinHC View Post
Pete -

Well, you're welcome anyway I guess.

Setting aside the mutual snark -- and focusing on the pedantic --

I thought I'd save our compatriots by not going into the nuanced details of the math calculations, but alas, here we are.

A typical tow rope is 65 feet in length. Picture a boat towing a skier that is edging far off to the side of the boat, and said skier comes within 150 feet of shore -- they are in violation of the law. Therefore, a legal 150 feet plus 65 feet (of rope) equals 215 feet. I know, math is hard.

But, this gets more nuanced! This must drive you nuts, because none of this can possibly be nuanced. Black and white - amiright?! Please bare with me.

Sometimes I like to Wakeboard with more than 65 feet, because more line means more air-time on tricks (ugh... physics AND geometry). 75 feet bumps this math calculation to 225 feet! I'll admit, a calculator was used for this extrapolation.

Darn, sometimes I waterski at 55 feet because the water is flatter as I cross the wake on a slalom. I'm not even sure I can do all this math... Wake surfing you ask? There's no rope... but the rider is roughly 5-10 feet from the part of the boat with the spinny thing.

I just thought it'd be easier to just say an average of 215 feet than go into the pedantic details, but I totally get why I should have outlined my methodology beforehand.

Last edited by FlyingScot; Yesterday at 10:12 AM.
FlyingScot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 10:09 AM   #48
DPatnaude
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Hopkinton, MA / Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 15
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Default Real Data

An interesting short read on the energy of waves as a factor of their height:
https://foca.on.ca/wp-content/upload...ther_lakes.pdf
DPatnaude is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to DPatnaude For This Useful Post:
loonguy (Today)
Old Yesterday, 03:01 PM   #49
Pine Island Guy
Senior Member
 
Pine Island Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: pine island of course!
Posts: 365
Thanks: 168
Thanked 199 Times in 91 Posts
Default math v. english...

Quote:
Originally Posted by paintitredinHC View Post
Pete -

Well, you're welcome anyway I guess.

Setting aside the mutual snark -- and focusing on the pedantic --

I thought I'd save our compatriots by not going into the nuanced details of the math calculations, but alas, here we are.

A typical tow rope is 65 feet in length. Picture a boat towing a skier that is edging far off to the side of the boat, and said skier comes within 150 feet of shore -- they are in violation of the law. Therefore, a legal 150 feet plus 65 feet (of rope) equals 215 feet. I know, math is hard.

But, this gets more nuanced! This must drive you nuts, because none of this can possibly be nuanced. Black and white - amiright?! Please bare with me.

Sometimes I like to Wakeboard with more than 65 feet, because more line means more air-time on tricks (ugh... physics AND geometry). 75 feet bumps this math calculation to 225 feet! I'll admit, a calculator was used for this extrapolation.

Darn, sometimes I waterski at 55 feet because the water is flatter as I cross the wake on a slalom. I'm not even sure I can do all this math... Wake surfing you ask? There's no rope... but the rider is roughly 5-10 feet from the part of the boat with the spinny thing.

I just thought it'd be easier to just say an average of 215 feet than go into the pedantic details, but I totally get why I should have outlined my methodology beforehand.
I won't argue with your math... but your English says you're inviting others ski naked with you

(you might want to change "Please bare with me"... to "Please bear with me")

Humor break is over, back to the discussion at hand -PIG
Pine Island Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 03:21 PM   #50
bilproject
Senior Member
 
bilproject's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bear Island/Fort Myers, Fla
Posts: 169
Thanks: 1
Thanked 18 Times in 17 Posts
Default No math no science just observation

I am on the north end, west side of Bear Island just south of the nwz right about where boats slow down and power up. On windy days with no or little boat traffic (wind generally is from the NW creating waves at the same angle as boat wakes) the water along my shoreline is clear. On busy Saturdays in the summer with 100 to 200 boats an hour passing North and South, the bottom can not be seen from the shore up to 40 feet out. What might you think is causing the erosion of the shore?
bilproject is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to bilproject For This Useful Post:
kawishiwi (Yesterday)
Old Today, 09:33 AM   #51
loonguy
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Moultonborough near the Loon Center
Posts: 46
Thanks: 15
Thanked 12 Times in 6 Posts
Default Real Data AND Possible Corrective Action

Quote:
Originally Posted by DPatnaude View Post
An interesting short read on the energy of waves as a factor of their height:
https://foca.on.ca/wp-content/upload...ther_lakes.pdf
Thanks to DPatnaude for the excellent article discussing the physics of waves and potential corrective action increasing the required distances from shore by wake boats and others to limit erosion and other damage from wave action.
loonguy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 10:01 AM   #52
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,047
Thanks: 715
Thanked 351 Times in 257 Posts
Arrow Incremental...Inevitable...

Quote:
Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin View Post
These threads always floor me.... Yes there is no doubt that wakeboard boats producing larger waves speeds up shoreline erosion... But is that the problem to go after? People Altering the shoreline in my mind is the bigger problem, taking away the natural retaining structure that help re-enforce the shoreline... This why states like Maine have very strict rules on altering the shoreline which includes cutting down trees etc. Unfortunately for Lake Winnipesaukee that damage has already been done. And unless the state makes all shore front owners plant a buffer of trees it isn't going to be corrected. So what to do now?
-- Yes education on fertilizers which damage the lake.
-- Yes bring some of the larger lakefront home dirt roads under public road control, so that they can get improved drainage. ( note this may require purcahsing property as well, to make rain water storage area's)
-- Yes work on educating lake front home owners on planting a buffer down to the water's edge. (who knows may bring in some property tax incentives to do so) The Damage is done.... to much development, and not enough control.... to think that targeting wakeboard boats, or crusiers etc. is the solution is just wrong... Let people enjoy the lake, the way they want.
Fix the problem by educating people...not with rules and regulations.

My property hasn't lost shoreline... in 30 years, I have wakeboarders etc all the time in front of my place... 3 neighbors enjoy this activity... How is this people may wonder... Well I let vegetation grow... I have several tree still along the shoreline... I haven't tried to alter the natural rocky transition from land to lake... etc. etc. etc. I educated myself... Yep I don't have a nice beach... but I would rather not... steps from my dock work just as well... I trim the tree branches up,so they don't effect my view and the trees can grow tall and strong...Stop point fingers at classes of people and blaming them for the problem.... Start educating people, and the problem will start to solve itself.
It doesn't rain at your property?

.
__________________
.Sailing—Good for you and good for the world...
ApS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 12:46 PM   #53
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 1,747
Thanks: 167
Thanked 1,153 Times in 423 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApS View Post
It doesn't rain at your property?

.
Apparently so, just like every boat you don't like that goes by your house creates an environmental disaster of epic proportions.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to MAXUM For This Useful Post:
Skip (Today)
Old Today, 01:29 PM   #54
loonguy
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Moultonborough near the Loon Center
Posts: 46
Thanks: 15
Thanked 12 Times in 6 Posts
Default

My property retains trees and other vegetation, but erosion still occurs. Although the erosion is so gradual that it might not be noticed from one year to the next, a telling indicator is that a surveyor's post from before my time on the property, presumably 30 years ago or so, is now two feet on the water side of the shore line.
loonguy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 01:34 PM   #55
FlyingScot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 365
Thanks: 123
Thanked 60 Times in 46 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin View Post
These threads always floor me....

Yes there is no doubt that wakeboard boats producing larger waves speeds up shoreline erosion... But is that the problem to go after?

People Altering the shoreline in my mind is the bigger problem, taking away the natural retaining structure that help re-enforce the shoreline... This why states like Maine have very strict rules on altering the shoreline which includes cutting down trees etc.

Unfortunately for Lake Winnipesaukee that damage has already been done. And unless the state makes all shore front owners plant a buffer of trees it isn't going to be corrected.

So what to do now?
-- Yes education on fertilizers which damage the lake.
-- Yes bring some of the larger lakefront home dirt roads under public road control, so that they can get improved drainage. ( note this may require purcahsing property as well, to make rain water storage area's)
-- Yes work on educating lake front home owners on planting a buffer down to the water's edge. (who knows may bring in some property tax incentives to do so)

The Damage is done.... to much development, and not enough control.... to think that targeting wakeboard boats, or crusiers etc. is the solution is just wrong... Let people enjoy the lake, the way they want.

Fix the problem by educating people...not with rules and regulations.

My property hasn't lost shoreline... in 30 years, I have wakeboarders etc all the time in front of my place... 3 neighbors enjoy this activity... How is this people may wonder... Well I let vegetation grow... I have several tree still along the shoreline... I haven't tried to alter the natural rocky transition from land to lake... etc. etc. etc. I educated myself... Yep I don't have a nice beach... but I would rather not... steps from my dock work just as well... I trim the tree branches up,so they don't effect my view and the trees can grow tall and strong....

Stop point fingers at classes of people and blaming them for the problem.... Start educating people, and the problem will start to solve itself.
We disagree on wakeboarders, but agree on most other things in your post.

Like you, I have lost very little shoreline myself, largely because my shoreline is rock and then a heavy buffer of vegetation. I wish education could solve the problem. But when we talk about shoreline, it doesn't seem realistic to get thousands of people with more developed shorelines to build environmentally sound structures where they have beach or clearcut areas today. So even with great education, wakeboards will continue to drive up phosphorous in the lake through erosion.
FlyingScot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 01:35 PM   #56
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,094
Thanks: 378
Thanked 650 Times in 449 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bilproject View Post
I am on the north end, west side of Bear Island just south of the nwz right about where boats slow down and power up. On windy days with no or little boat traffic (wind generally is from the NW creating waves at the same angle as boat wakes) the water along my shoreline is clear. On busy Saturdays in the summer with 100 to 200 boats an hour passing North and South, the bottom can not be seen from the shore up to 40 feet out. What might you think is causing the erosion of the shore?
Is that your place where Ambrose is putting in the new dock? (We just went by there.)
tis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 03:12 PM   #57
LIforrelaxin
Senior Member
 
LIforrelaxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island, not that one, the one on Winnipesaukee
Posts: 2,090
Thanks: 738
Thanked 569 Times in 302 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApS View Post
It doesn't rain at your property?

.
APS, why do you always try and bend posts in directions they wheren't meant to go....

While it rains at my property, with the amount of vegetation, and rocks at the shoreline... I see very little erosion, end of story.... My shoreline for the most part is untouched.... no attempts for a beach etc. left the way mother nature created it...
__________________
Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island.....
LIforrelaxin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 03:13 PM   #58
bilproject
Senior Member
 
bilproject's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bear Island/Fort Myers, Fla
Posts: 169
Thanks: 1
Thanked 18 Times in 17 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tis View Post
Is that your place where Ambrose is putting in the new dock? (We just went by there.)
No I'm south of there. That is the beginning of the Nwz.
bilproject is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 04:52 PM   #59
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,094
Thanks: 378
Thanked 650 Times in 449 Posts
Default

Ok. Just thought I would ask.
tis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 06:43 PM   #60
paintitredinHC
Member
 
paintitredinHC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 41
Thanks: 29
Thanked 17 Times in 11 Posts
Default Sometimes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, I hope this was at least somewhat informative. I think I'll start my weekend now...
paintitredinHC is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 06:53 PM   #61
Outdoorsman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 532
Thanks: 53
Thanked 117 Times in 78 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paintitredinHC View Post
Pete -

Well, you're welcome anyway I guess.

Setting aside the mutual snark -- and focusing on the pedantic --

I thought I'd save our compatriots by not going into the nuanced details of the math calculations, but alas, here we are.

A typical tow rope is 65 feet in length. Picture a boat towing a skier that is edging far off to the side of the boat, and said skier comes within 150 feet of shore -- they are in violation of the law. Therefore, a legal 150 feet plus 65 feet (of rope) equals 215 feet. I know, math is hard.

But, this gets more nuanced! This must drive you nuts, because none of this can possibly be nuanced. Black and white - amiright?! Please bare with me.

Sometimes I like to Wakeboard with more than 65 feet, because more line means more air-time on tricks (ugh... physics AND geometry). 75 feet bumps this math calculation to 225 feet! I'll admit, a calculator was used for this extrapolation.

Darn, sometimes I waterski at 55 feet because the water is flatter as I cross the wake on a slalom. I'm not even sure I can do all this math... Wake surfing you ask? There's no rope... but the rider is roughly 5-10 feet from the part of the boat with the spinny thing.

I just thought it'd be easier to just say an average of 215 feet than go into the pedantic details, but I totally get why I should have outlined my methodology beforehand.
I will dumb this down for you. The 150' rule is for the VESSEL. There is nothing saying a skier towed behind said vessel can not pass closer than 150'... So much for your calculator.
Outdoorsman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 07:09 PM   #62
paintitredinHC
Member
 
paintitredinHC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 41
Thanks: 29
Thanked 17 Times in 11 Posts
Default Jeez Bud...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Outdoorsman View Post
I will dumb this down for you. The 150' rule is for the VESSEL. There is nothing saying a skier towed behind said vessel can not pass closer than 150'... So much for your calculator.
So hostile.

https://www.boat-ed.com/newhampshire...102_700153787/

The last line on this page suggests otherwise.
paintitredinHC is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 07:24 PM   #63
Outdoorsman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 532
Thanks: 53
Thanked 117 Times in 78 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paintitredinHC View Post
So hostile.

https://www.boat-ed.com/newhampshire...102_700153787/

The last line on this page suggests otherwise.
This line?
When returning to the shore with a skier, the towing vessel and the skier must remain at least 150 feet from shore.

Read the word Vessle....
Outdoorsman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 08:23 PM   #64
paintitredinHC
Member
 
paintitredinHC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 41
Thanks: 29
Thanked 17 Times in 11 Posts
Default ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Outdoorsman View Post
This line?
When returning to the shore with a skier, the towing vessel and the skier must remain at least 150 feet from shore.

Read the word Vessle....
Dude- you’re worse than freakin flyingscot. Is this willful ignorance? You literally underlined ‘and the skier’... we can debate the application of the law if the skier is directly in line with the boat, but if the operator does not allow for a margin of error if the skier ventures outside of the wake then they are illegal. This is not a difficult concept. And this is so peripheral to the primary issue I don’t even understand why everyone is so fixated on it... not to mention that I’m actually suggesting that boats towing skiers should be further away from shore which I would think aligns with the primary concern. Throw a figure out there and everyone does mental gymnastics to refute it, but bring up a conceptual argument and everyone’s eyes glaze over..
paintitredinHC is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 08:46 PM   #65
ITD
Senior Member
 
ITD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Massachusetts and Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,256
Thanks: 327
Thanked 410 Times in 235 Posts
Default

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, I hope this was at least somewhat informative. I think I'll start my weekend now...
Why don't you go stand on the shore when a large boat or a wakesurfing or wakeboarding boat goes by kicking up a 2+ foot wake and then tell me I'm wrong. If you think the wave from your boat dissipates in 215 feet you are very mistaken, take a look some day. I see it every weekend during the summer and most week days, I'd video it for you, but sounds like you don't care, which is fine, but at least look, before you declare others wrong about something easily seen.
ITD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 08:58 PM   #66
greeleyhill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 64
Thanks: 35
Thanked 19 Times in 8 Posts
Default I think its time to call it - "thread time of death..."

I think this thread has gone sideways, which can happen on this forum from time to time. That's ok. Lots of people, lots of opinions which, is usually great but once again, it turns into an argument with a few people...which is fine and sometimes entertaining. Please read the original post and remember the original spirit of the post which is to help LWA build a case by identifying hot spots where runoff and erosion are potential hazard to the lake and our property value. Just my thought at the moment, but again, also enjoy the entertainment value and obserdity brought on by some who seem oddly aggressive and uninformed.
greeleyhill is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 0.47220 seconds