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 (Yesterday), 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: 135
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: 801
Thanks: 270
Thanked 395 Times in 158 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: 77
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 offline   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: 2,255
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2018, 05:43 PM   #7
loonguy
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Moultonborough near the Loon Center
Posts: 41
Thanks: 13
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 offline   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: 77
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 offline   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 91 Times in 65 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: 4,040
Thanks: 714
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: 4,040
Thanks: 714
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: 4,087
Thanks: 377
Thanked 647 Times in 447 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: 38
Thanks: 28
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 offline   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: 360
Thanks: 122
Thanked 58 Times in 45 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 Yesterday, 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 (Yesterday)
Old Yesterday, 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; Yesterday at 12:09 PM.
Rattlesnake Gal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 10:57 AM   #31
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 1,746
Thanks: 167
Thanked 1,150 Times in 421 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 Yesterday, 12:18 PM   #32
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 1,746
Thanks: 167
Thanked 1,150 Times in 421 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 Yesterday, 12:30 PM   #33
Hillcountry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: In the hills
Posts: 1,055
Thanks: 554
Thanked 185 Times in 121 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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:35 PM   #34
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 1,746
Thanks: 167
Thanked 1,150 Times in 421 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 Yesterday, 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: 2,089
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 (Yesterday), ursa minor (Yesterday)
Old Yesterday, 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 Yesterday, 02:06 PM   #37
kawishiwi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 357
Thanks: 133
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 Yesterday, 03:38 PM   #38
paintitredinHC
Member
 
paintitredinHC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 38
Thanks: 28
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 offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to paintitredinHC For This Useful Post:
FlyingScot (Today), iw8surf (Today)
Old Today, 10:46 AM   #39
SIKSUKR
Senior Member
 
SIKSUKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,032
Thanks: 214
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 Today, 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 Today, 04:06 PM   #41
FlyingScot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 360
Thanks: 122
Thanked 58 Times in 45 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 (Today)
Old Today, 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 Today, 06:56 PM   #43
paintitredinHC
Member
 
paintitredinHC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 38
Thanks: 28
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; Today at 07:03 PM. Reason: forgot to carry the 3....
paintitredinHC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 08:56 PM   #44
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 1,746
Thanks: 167
Thanked 1,150 Times in 421 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
Old Today, 09:19 PM   #45
ITD
Senior Member
 
ITD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Massachusetts and Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,255
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 offline   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 10:45 PM.


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

This page was generated in 0.39278 seconds