Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Winnipesaukee Forums > General Discussion
Home Forums Gallery YouTube Channel Classifieds Links 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: 12
Thanks: 0
Thanked 22 Times in 5 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 13 Users Say Thank You to Lake Winnipesaukee Assoc For This Useful Post:
ApS (08-06-2018), bostique (08-18-2018), 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: 174
Thanks: 19
Thanked 40 Times in 31 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: 822
Thanks: 275
Thanked 407 Times in 163 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: 624
Thanks: 82
Thanked 136 Times in 101 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: 239
Thanks: 17
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: 2,284
Thanks: 327
Thanked 417 Times in 242 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
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Moultonborough near the Loon Center
Posts: 67
Thanks: 18
Thanked 18 Times in 11 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: 12
Thanks: 0
Thanked 22 Times in 5 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: 34
Thanks: 11
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: 451
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: 451
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: 624
Thanks: 82
Thanked 136 Times in 101 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: 316
Thanks: 11
Thanked 96 Times in 70 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: 4,163
Thanks: 766
Thanked 366 Times in 270 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: 34
Thanks: 11
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: 186
Thanks: 105
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: 12
Thanks: 0
Thanked 22 Times in 5 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: 380
Thanks: 48
Thanked 286 Times in 89 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: 1,509
Thanks: 394
Thanked 522 Times in 266 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: 380
Thanks: 48
Thanked 286 Times in 89 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: 4,163
Thanks: 766
Thanked 366 Times in 270 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: 4,241
Thanks: 397
Thanked 693 Times in 482 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: 319
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: 441
Thanks: 64
Thanked 144 Times in 81 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: 30
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: 319
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: 378
Thanks: 149
Thanked 73 Times in 51 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: 218
Thanks: 59
Thanked 119 Times in 49 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: 319
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: 5,228
Thanks: 1,389
Thanked 1,319 Times in 463 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
The Following User Says Thank You to Rattlesnake Gal For This Useful Post:
bostique (08-18-2018)
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: 1,801
Thanks: 167
Thanked 1,180 Times in 441 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: 1,801
Thanks: 167
Thanked 1,180 Times in 441 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: 1,236
Thanks: 614
Thanked 245 Times in 157 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: 1,801
Thanks: 167
Thanked 1,180 Times in 441 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: 2,102
Thanks: 743
Thanked 572 Times in 305 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
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 32
Thanks: 7
Thanked 11 Times in 8 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: 387
Thanks: 138
Thanked 87 Times in 59 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: 38
Thanks: 30
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 (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: 5,046
Thanks: 215
Thanked 892 Times in 504 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
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 32
Thanks: 7
Thanked 11 Times in 8 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: 378
Thanks: 149
Thanked 73 Times in 51 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: 38
Thanks: 30
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 offline   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: 1,801
Thanks: 167
Thanked 1,180 Times in 441 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 (08-17-2018)
Old 08-15-2018, 09:19 PM   #45
ITD
Senior Member
 
ITD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Massachusetts and Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,284
Thanks: 327
Thanked 417 Times in 242 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
Old 08-16-2018, 07:49 AM   #46
The Real BigGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 305
Thanks: 6
Thanked 92 Times in 56 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 offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to The Real BigGuy For This Useful Post:
BoatHouse (08-16-2018), thinkxingu (08-16-2018)
Old 08-16-2018, 09:32 AM   #47
FlyingScot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 378
Thanks: 149
Thanked 73 Times in 51 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; 08-16-2018 at 10:12 AM.
FlyingScot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2018, 10:09 AM   #48
DPatnaude
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Hopkinton, MA / Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 17
Thanks: 0
Thanked 4 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 2 Users Say Thank You to DPatnaude For This Useful Post:
Descant (08-20-2018), loonguy (08-17-2018)
Old 08-16-2018, 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 08-16-2018, 03:21 PM   #50
bilproject
Senior Member
 
bilproject's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bear Island/Fort Myers, Fla
Posts: 174
Thanks: 1
Thanked 20 Times in 19 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 (08-16-2018)
Old 08-17-2018, 09:33 AM   #51
loonguy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Moultonborough near the Loon Center
Posts: 67
Thanks: 18
Thanked 18 Times in 11 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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2018, 10:01 AM   #52
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,163
Thanks: 766
Thanked 366 Times in 270 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 08-17-2018, 12:46 PM   #53
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 1,801
Thanks: 167
Thanked 1,180 Times in 441 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 (08-17-2018)
Old 08-17-2018, 01:29 PM   #54
loonguy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Moultonborough near the Loon Center
Posts: 67
Thanks: 18
Thanked 18 Times in 11 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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2018, 01:34 PM   #55
FlyingScot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 378
Thanks: 149
Thanked 73 Times in 51 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 08-17-2018, 01:35 PM   #56
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,241
Thanks: 397
Thanked 693 Times in 482 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 08-17-2018, 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: 2,102
Thanks: 743
Thanked 572 Times in 305 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 08-17-2018, 03:13 PM   #58
bilproject
Senior Member
 
bilproject's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bear Island/Fort Myers, Fla
Posts: 174
Thanks: 1
Thanked 20 Times in 19 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 08-17-2018, 04:52 PM   #59
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,241
Thanks: 397
Thanked 693 Times in 482 Posts
Default

Ok. Just thought I would ask.
tis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2018, 06:43 PM   #60
paintitredinHC
Member
 
paintitredinHC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 38
Thanks: 30
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2018, 06:53 PM   #61
Outdoorsman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 550
Thanks: 57
Thanked 120 Times in 81 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 08-17-2018, 07:09 PM   #62
paintitredinHC
Member
 
paintitredinHC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 38
Thanks: 30
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2018, 07:24 PM   #63
Outdoorsman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 550
Thanks: 57
Thanked 120 Times in 81 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
The Following User Says Thank You to Outdoorsman For This Useful Post:
upthesaukee (08-19-2018)
Old 08-17-2018, 08:23 PM   #64
paintitredinHC
Member
 
paintitredinHC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 38
Thanks: 30
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2018, 08:46 PM   #65
ITD
Senior Member
 
ITD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Massachusetts and Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,284
Thanks: 327
Thanked 417 Times in 242 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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2018, 08:58 PM   #66
greeleyhill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 70
Thanks: 39
Thanked 21 Times in 10 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 offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to greeleyhill For This Useful Post:
LoveLakeLife (08-17-2018)
Old 08-18-2018, 03:26 AM   #67
Greene's Basin Girl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 1,509
Thanks: 394
Thanked 522 Times in 266 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...
I totally agree with you. Most wakeboard boats up at our end of the lake come into Green's Basin. They blast music and wakeboard for hours. The people in these boats have zero respect for the people that live in the basin and I am sure they are not worried at all about erosion. They should only be allowed out in very large areas.
Greene's Basin Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Greene's Basin Girl For This Useful Post:
bostique (08-18-2018)
Old 08-18-2018, 07:29 AM   #68
TiltonBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gilford, NH and Florida
Posts: 1,176
Thanks: 175
Thanked 626 Times in 244 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
That is very true. I wondered the same thing.

In fact, the GFBL boats were a lot less of a nuisance than the wake boats. A GFBL boat goes by (usually on plane and leaving a much smaller wake) and keeps on going. If they have a stereo the speakers are located down inside the boat (with the intention that the people IN the boat enjoy the music).

Wake board boats seem to get in a particular area and stay, sometimes for hours. While little Skippy and the boat load of friends each take their turn they play loud music through speakers mounted to blast music across the lake, above the sound of the boat. That music (sometimes loaded with profanity) can easily be bothersome to over 100 homes at a time.

I have been sitting on my front deck reading a book when one of the wake board boats decide to play in my area. I have had to go inside to get away from the noise these boats make, mostly from the loud stereos. I never had to do that in the days of the GFBL boats.
TiltonBB is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to TiltonBB For This Useful Post:
ApS (08-19-2018), Greene's Basin Girl (08-18-2018), mishman (09-12-2018)
Old 08-18-2018, 07:33 AM   #69
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,163
Thanks: 766
Thanked 366 Times in 270 Posts
Question Say, Where Are the Canoes We Used to See?

Quote:
Originally Posted by loonguy View Post
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.
When the lake level is highest, water reaches far behind the visible shoreline rocks—and pulls the soil into the lake.

When oversized boats pass by, their wakes artificially raise the lake level, invisibly (and "innocently") pulling even more soil contents into the lake.

The lake's "reach" is underfoot when one stands at the shoreline. (!)

This tree, which is obviously falling into the lake, could not have started as a sapling at "full pond". This tree is slowly releasing soil into the lake. Like many of the trees along Winter Harbor's shoreline, only a few shoreline rocks are delaying its slow slide into the lake.



I've cropped-out the dredging operation abutting this tree.

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
The article fails to address the compounding of two or more wakes which extends the invisible reach of water to shorelines underfoot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin View Post
APS, why do you always try and bend posts in directions they weren'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...
There was a time when we didn't have to clean the waterfront of debris, twigs, limbs and the lake's bottom wasn't quicksand.

Like our neighbors (and islanders), we draw water from the lake. Early in the season, lake water appears different. Can you guess which container just might have the results of nine months of precipitation, an artificially-raised Spring lake level, a sun-filled weekend of oversized-boat traffic—versus the container filled a few days earlier?
Attached Images
 
__________________
.Sailing—Good for you and good for the world...

Last edited by ApS; 08-20-2018 at 07:53 AM. Reason: fix last sentence
ApS is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ApS For This Useful Post:
FlyingScot (08-18-2018), loonguy (08-18-2018)
Old 08-18-2018, 09:55 AM   #70
Top-Water
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Derry-Belmont
Posts: 295
Thanks: 146
Thanked 137 Times in 52 Posts
Default Unintended Consequences

2 quotes below from this thread a few years ago that in all my years on the lake I consider to be the absolute gospel truth in regards to pulling water-skiers. Not sure of the current text of any new instructional boating safety manuals that might exist or ambiguous language in them.

I have no dog in the discussion about wake board boats and the soil erosion topic, but have to laugh a little inside about the unintended consequences that has taken place now that we have all these much slower boats populating the lake. Kinda makes the fast boats make big wakes a B***S*** bad silence story. It always was a BS story just to impress legislators to change the speed limit law.

Back to water skiers, in the 70's when our family was involved with the water ski races trying to find ways to go faster we experimented with rope lengths up to 400+ feet long on lake Winnisquam. DO NOT do this nowadays for couple of reasons and I believe you would need an exhibition permit to do it. When the rope is really long you have to keep the speed of the boat up to 50 miles per hour or faster to keep the line out of the water, and you more or less have to keep traveling in a straight line. Not a fun way to water ski only practical if competing in a water-ski races behind a powerful fast boat.

Maybe instead of taxing property owners more or creating more rules and regulations we should force everyone pulling water skiers to use 400 or 500 foot rope lengths. Think of the problems it would solve more or less everyone would have to waterkski in a straigt line, making it practicaly imposible to ski in small coves. Not to mention all the soil erosion it would slow down.

Dam-it I just realized that would mean creating a new law and and that my post reads like something FLL posted.


https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums...ead.php?t=4947


Quote:
Originally Posted by Misty Blue View Post
Towing a water skiier does not give the tow boat any privaliges over other boats. There is a neet little curve ball here too.

The 150 foot safe passage rule also applies to the skiier. If the skiier is cutting out hard to the side it is the responsibility of the vessel operator to ensure that the skiier maintains the 150 foot rule.

Misty Blue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DREAMS View Post
I predict the majority of these clueless drivers you are seeing never read, learned or tested for the boater exam - their buddy or relative tested for them and basically handed them the certificate. Those people will never learn anything since they are "set for life".

If anyone went to the required state exam course, the marine patrol officer quite clearly stated: If you are towing a skier, tuber or any object, you must now maintain an additional 150' distance between the person/object in tow and another boat or object in the water. Thus, when towing skiers, your distance becomes 300' to allow for the skier and the boat. If in doubt, call any marine patrol or read your manual. Once again, how will marine patrol pull the ignorant off the lake with life time certificates or give fines for violations when they lack sufficient boats and officers to patrol and see these dangers drivers. Some things will never change!
Once again, how will marine patrol pull the ignorant off the lake with life time certificates or give fines for violations when they lack sufficient boats and officers to patrol and see these dangers drivers.

Stop giving out blanket certificates that allow for any activity with out some actual on the water experience. Something like a learners permit over a period of time, no violations with a basic standard certificate allows you apply for special activities. With training and education related to that activity a little similar to getting a motor cycle endorsement or rules that apply to truck driver. I guess I'm trying to say you would need to earn it to some extent like most of us old timers did with our parents training us when we were young and the lake was less crowded. After all if you can't follow the basic boating laws, you should not take on something more difficult without understanding the special circumstances related to it.

Dam another new law.

Last edited by Top-Water; 08-18-2018 at 10:43 AM.
Top-Water is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2018, 10:44 AM   #71
debbyi64
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 11
Thanks: 4
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
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.


Why would you fine someone if they have water front and follow the lake guidelines? Plus if the issue could be one mile out that negates a fee to waterfront owners. Maybe random inspections of properties up to one mile out to make sure they are following guidelines and if not fine them and give them a certain date to have the issue corrected?


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
debbyi64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2018, 11:01 AM   #72
debbyi64
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 11
Thanks: 4
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake Winnipesaukee Assoc View Post
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!


Nice presentation. I will certainly keep an eye out for issues. How can we maintain or build up buffers? Thank you.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
debbyi64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2018, 08:11 AM   #73
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 1,801
Thanks: 167
Thanked 1,180 Times in 441 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by loonguy View Post
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.
And you know this for a fact? You readily admit that is marker was placed “before your time” and “presumably” 30 years ago and even though at the time you didn’t witness where it was placed, or when exactly but for the purposes of making your claim you simply throw out arbitrary observation. It’s not in the least bit possible this was placed there instead we are to believe that two feet of shore has eroded?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApS View Post
When oversized boats pass by, their wakes artificially raise the lake level, invisibly (and "innocently") pulling even more soil contents into the lake..
This is the most ridiculous statement ever – so the waves of a boat that you classify as “oversize” without definition are the ONLY thing that is supposedly doing this. So I can easily throw a 2.5 foot wake behind my 14’ aluminum boat, I guess that if it doesn’t make your “oversized” list won’t do a thing but the same sized wake from a boat you don’t like or classify as “oversized” is destroying the shore? I’m trying not to laugh to hard at that one. How about the wakes created by passing sailboats? Oh right those are OK because they are on the “approved” APS list of boats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApS View Post
This tree, which is obviously falling into the lake, could not have started as a sapling at "full pond". This tree is slowly releasing soil into the lake. Like many of the trees along Winter Harbor's shoreline, only a few shoreline rocks are delaying its slow slide into the lake.
This tree is not obviously falling into the lake, in fact it looks based on the size and shape of the base of the trunk been there for a long time. In fact, if you look at the tree right next to it in the same picture grew out nearly horizontal before making a 90 degree angle and grew quasi vertically. Based on the size of that trunk both have been there a long time. Again, though for the purposes of over dramatization trees never start to grow anywhere unless it was perfectly cultivated. It’s not in the least bit possible that trees don’t prefer to grow in a direction where their unimpeded by surrounding trees or for that matter in the direction of where they would be exposed to the most sun – in this case over the water? Nah could never happen on planet APS. Last time I was in winter harbor I’m sorry but I missed “many of the trees” along the shore are at risk of “sliding into the lake”. You’d think Winter Harbor is a pending disaster area with all these dangerous trees along the shore on the verge of falling into the lake and killing somebody! BTW in taking a walk along my frontage yesterday I spied several saplings growing at precarious angles out over the water right out of the shore line rocks. Shockingly it happens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApS View Post
The article fails to address the compounding of two or more wakes which extends the invisible reach of water to shorelines
There is a reason for that, because waves of this kind do not “compound”. May want to read up on the science of waves in water.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApS View Post
Like our neighbors (and islanders), we draw water from the lake. Early in the season, lake water appears different. Can you guess which container just might have the results of nine months of precipitation, an artificially-raised Spring lake level, and a sun-filled weekend of oversized-boat traffic?
Wait a minute…. Didn’t you say this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApS View Post
When oversized boats pass by, their wakes artificially raise the lake level, invisibly (and "innocently") pulling even more soil contents into the lake..
So which is it? Now you are contradicting yourself by saying this is happening invisibly then post a picture of a bottle of water visibly that suggests otherwise.

Embellishing your argument makes you look silly, how is anyone supposed to take what you say seriously? LOL I certainly don’t.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to MAXUM For This Useful Post:
DEJ (08-19-2018)
Old 08-19-2018, 08:53 AM   #74
loonguy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Moultonborough near the Loon Center
Posts: 67
Thanks: 18
Thanked 18 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by loonguy:
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.

MAXUM: "And you know this for a fact? You readily admit that is marker was placed “before your time” and “presumably” 30 years ago and even though at the time you didn’t witness where it was placed, or when exactly but for the purposes of making your claim you simply throw out arbitrary observation. It’s not in the least bit possible this was placed there instead we are to believe that two feet of shore has eroded? "

You may not like the conclusion because it is inconsistent with your agenda, MAXUM, but it is a fair conclusion based on the facts. Why would a surveyor who is marking the end of a property line place a marker two feet into the lake, which is otherwise public space? The marker is also consistent with the otherwise available plots of the property.
loonguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2018, 09:20 AM   #75
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,163
Thanks: 766
Thanked 366 Times in 270 Posts
Arrow "Little Skippy"...LOL!

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAXUM View Post
Apparently so, just like every boat you don't like that goes by your house creates an environmental disaster of epic proportions.
Maybe everyone's piling dock shakes from wakes, IDK.

On calm days, friends on the other side of Wolfeboro Neck (Broads-side) have to put up with breathing difficulties, so I guess we're luckier in that "environmental-hazard" aspect.

In Florida, wake-disrupted & floating & rotting Turtle Grass has made people move away from affected oceanfront homes, so even ocean breezes don't bring in enough oxygen.

In Winter Harbor, my neighbors can't hear my radio; most weekends, neither can I.

Quote:
Quote:
MAXUM: "And you know this for a fact? You readily admit that is marker was placed “before your time” and “presumably” 30 years ago and even though at the time you didn’t witness where it was placed, or when exactly but for the purposes of making your claim you simply throw out arbitrary observation. It’s not in the least bit possible this was placed there instead we are to believe that two feet of shore has eroded?"
You may not like the conclusion because it is inconsistent with your agenda, MAXUM, but it is a fair conclusion based on the facts. Why would a surveyor who is marking the end of a property line place a marker two feet into the lake, which is otherwise public space? The marker is also consistent with the otherwise available plots of the property.
We don't have a survey marker in the water, but if you look downward next to it, you can see the lake through tree roots. (And the marker is a good eight feet from our shoreline's rocks).

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
You have a point, although their defense was "We are passing by very fast, so the noise doesn't stay around". Today, objectionable noise is amplified electronically, rather than having gamed NH's noise RSA with the recent "Trojan Horse Law". (Absent enforcement).

At least Wakeboarders and Wake-Surfers haven't killed anyone. (Although they've come close — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KQQOBLbqPA )

.
__________________
.Sailing—Good for you and good for the world...
ApS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2018, 01:00 PM   #76
ITD
Senior Member
 
ITD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Massachusetts and Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,284
Thanks: 327
Thanked 417 Times in 242 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApS View Post
Another captain with no clue how to control his vessel. (waverunner)
ITD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2018, 06:47 PM   #77
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 1,801
Thanks: 167
Thanked 1,180 Times in 441 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by loonguy View Post
Originally Posted by loonguy:
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.

MAXUM: "And you know this for a fact? You readily admit that is marker was placed “before your time” and “presumably” 30 years ago and even though at the time you didn’t witness where it was placed, or when exactly but for the purposes of making your claim you simply throw out arbitrary observation. It’s not in the least bit possible this was placed there instead we are to believe that two feet of shore has eroded? "

You may not like the conclusion because it is inconsistent with your agenda, MAXUM, but it is a fair conclusion based on the facts. Why would a surveyor who is marking the end of a property line place a marker two feet into the lake, which is otherwise public space? The marker is also consistent with the otherwise available plots of the property.
Apparently you haven't read my prior posts in this thread where I suggested that the shore erosion problem needs to be looked at especially with the increased popularity of wake surfing - furthermore I stated the following and I quote myself here:

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.


So with all due respect I have no "agenda" but clearly you do. You cannot possible come up with a conclusion when you have no factual basis in which to formulate such a conclusion other than assumption. You loose credibility when the evidence your bringing is so easily discredited. I'd prefer to leave it to somebody who knows this stuff to look at the problem holistically, study the affects and produce a non-biased set of observations, then suggest means of mitigation if necessary.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2018, 07:08 PM   #78
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 1,801
Thanks: 167
Thanked 1,180 Times in 441 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by loonguy View Post
Originally Posted by loonguy:
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.

MAXUM: "And you know this for a fact? You readily admit that is marker was placed “before your time” and “presumably” 30 years ago and even though at the time you didn’t witness where it was placed, or when exactly but for the purposes of making your claim you simply throw out arbitrary observation. It’s not in the least bit possible this was placed there instead we are to believe that two feet of shore has eroded? "

You may not like the conclusion because it is inconsistent with your agenda, MAXUM, but it is a fair conclusion based on the facts. Why would a surveyor who is marking the end of a property line place a marker two feet into the lake, which is otherwise public space? The marker is also consistent with the otherwise available plots of the property.
Apparently you haven't read my prior posts in this thread where I suggested that the shore erosion problem needs to be looked at especially with the increased popularity of wake surfing - furthermore I stated the following and I quote myself here:

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.


So with all due respect I have no "agenda" but clearly you do. You cannot possible come up with a conclusion when you have no factual basis in which to formulate such a conclusion other than assumption. You loose credibility when the evidence your bringing is so easily discredited. I'd prefer to leave it to somebody who knows this stuff to look at the problem holistically, study the affects and produce a non-biased set of observations, then suggest means of mitigation if necessary.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2018, 07:24 PM   #79
loonguy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Moultonborough near the Loon Center
Posts: 67
Thanks: 18
Thanked 18 Times in 11 Posts
Default

My only agenda is reporting my observations of the fact of erosion on my property and I stand by the reasonableness of my conclusions. I have not seen any posts by experts who suggest that erosion is not a real issue.
loonguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2018, 06:36 AM   #80
swnoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 174
Thanks: 19
Thanked 40 Times in 31 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApS View Post
When the lake level is highest, water reaches far behind the visible shoreline rocks—and pulls the soil into the lake.

When oversized boats pass by, their wakes artificially raise the lake level, invisibly (and "innocently") pulling even more soil contents into the lake.

The lake's "reach" is underfoot when one stands at the shoreline. (!)

This tree, which is obviously falling into the lake, could not have started as a sapling at "full pond". This tree is slowly releasing soil into the lake. Like many of the trees along Winter Harbor's shoreline, only a few shoreline rocks are delaying its slow slide into the lake.



I've cropped-out the dredging operation abutting this tree.



The article fails to address the compounding of two or more wakes which extends the invisible reach of water to shorelines underfoot.

There was a time when we didn't have to clean the waterfront of debris, twigs, limbs and the lake's bottom wasn't quicksand.

Like our neighbors (and islanders), we draw water from the lake. Early in the season, lake water appears different. Can you guess which container just might have the results of nine months of precipitation, an artificially-raised Spring lake level, and a sun-filled weekend of oversized-boat traffic?
Is that picture showing the original shoreline of the lake?
swnoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2018, 07:50 AM   #81
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,163
Thanks: 766
Thanked 366 Times in 270 Posts
Arrow So What Happened Here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by swnoel View Post
Is that picture showing the original shoreline of the lake?
Not sure what that means. The photo was taken last week. A photo taken a few years ago isn't likely to help (due to distance) but I'll try to make it work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAXUM View Post
This is the most ridiculous statement ever – so the waves of a boat that you classify as “oversize” without definition are the ONLY thing that is supposedly doing this. So I can easily throw a 2.5 foot wake behind my 14’ aluminum boat, I guess that if it doesn’t make your “oversized” list won’t do a thing but the same sized wake from a boat you don’t like or classify as “oversized” is destroying the shore? I’m trying not to laugh to hard at that one. How about the wakes created by passing sailboats? Oh right those are OK because they are on the “approved” APS list of boats.
Since a 40-foot Tri-Toon would definitely make my "approved ApS list, so "oversized" obviously/intentionally doesn't apply to all boats. Note that even the largest—and most heavily loaded—pontoon boat can't compare with most powerboats half that length in damaging shorelines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAXUM View Post
This tree is not obviously falling into the lake, in fact it looks based on the size and shape of the base of the trunk been there for a long time. In fact, if you look at the tree right next to it in the same picture grew out nearly horizontal before making a 90 degree angle and grew quasi vertically. Based on the size of that trunk both have been there a long time. Again, though for the purposes of over dramatization trees never start to grow anywhere unless it was perfectly cultivated. It’s not in the least bit possible that trees don’t prefer to grow in a direction where their unimpeded by surrounding trees or for that matter in the direction of where they would be exposed to the most sun – in this case over the water? Nah could never happen on planet APS. Last time I was in winter harbor I’m sorry but I missed “many of the trees” along the shore are at risk of “sliding into the lake”. You’d think Winter Harbor is a pending disaster area with all these dangerous trees along the shore on the verge of falling into the lake and killing somebody! BTW in taking a walk along my frontage yesterday I spied several saplings growing at precarious angles out over the water right out of the shore line rocks. Shockingly it happens.
All plants grow to reflect geotropism and heliotropism. The "bent" tree you refer to had some environmental "upset"; most likely, it lost its soil base as a young tree, then continued growing normally. Most deciduous trees are capable of growing so as to appear contorted.

Most coniferous trees will grow straight; but if their trunks appear bent, it's because of shifting soil or rocks.

This palm tree had some kind of misadventure, but has responded to gravity and sun to resume growing straight upwards again:


Most alarming is the number of Winter Harbor trees that fall into the lake, which varies every season. When they fall on the ice, they're carried away, they're never seen again—above water. When they land in the lake, these trees remain tentatively attached to the shoreline before they sink. In either case, they add to the nutrient levels in the lake—along with the soil they release. Many are simply cut down. Presently in Johnson's Cove, there's a stack of (apparently useless) cut logs piled directly abutting the lake. Will they be there next Spring?

What the NHMP does with fallen trees when they are called to drag them away—IDK.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAXUM View Post
There is a reason for that, because waves of this kind do not “compound”. May want to read up on the science of waves in water.
There's been a confusion of "waves" and "wakes" here.

But as a proponent of "common sense", wouldn't waves and wakes compound one-another, regardless of their direction? Southbound wakes should be expected to add their "throw-weight" to a wave driven by a North wind. Especially a strong wind capable of the erosion suggested here by others.

Or to other wakes whose shoreline throw-weight is randomly synchronized with other wakes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAXUM View Post
Wait a minute…. Didn’t you say this? So which is it? Now you are contradicting yourself by saying this is happening invisibly then post a picture of a bottle of water visibly that suggests otherwise. Embellishing your argument makes you look silly, how is anyone supposed to take what you say seriously? LOL I certainly don’t.
That incomplete post has been edited with the following:
—versus the container filled a few days earlier?

What happened here?
Attached Images
 
__________________
.Sailing—Good for you and good for the world...
ApS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2018, 08:14 AM   #82
rsmlp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 319
Thanks: 3
Thanked 76 Times in 36 Posts
Default big boats

This thread strikes me hypothetical and fatuous. There is NO WAY big boats will be limited on Winni. We were on our beach yesterday and a boat at least 500 yards out was trolling at the perfect huge wake speed (as they are wont to do). Monster wakes hit us. I'm talking 2-3 footers but frankly this is NOTHING vs a windy day on Windy Point Rd at South point. Mother nature will cause far more damage than a few big boats.
rsmlp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2018, 10:41 AM   #83
swnoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 174
Thanks: 19
Thanked 40 Times in 31 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApS View Post
Not sure what that means. The photo was taken last week. A photo taken a few years ago isn't likely to help (due to distance) but I'll try to make it work.
Didn't realize this would be a confusing question... what part of it is confusing? It's either the original shoreline for the lake or not. The real problem is the manipulation of the waterfront by owners and state. They've removed the natural erosion barriers and now are complaining. My suggestion is to mandate the replacement or rocks , shrubs, and trees to a consistency of what would be expected in a natural environment prior to their removal. Course that would solve only one part of the problem.
swnoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2018, 11:19 AM   #84
Lake Winnipesaukee Assoc
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Meredith
Posts: 12
Thanks: 0
Thanked 22 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rsmlp View Post
This thread strikes me hypothetical and fatuous. There is NO WAY big boats will be limited on Winni. We were on our beach yesterday and a boat at least 500 yards out was trolling at the perfect huge wake speed (as they are wont to do). Monster wakes hit us. I'm talking 2-3 footers but frankly this is NOTHING vs a windy day on Windy Point Rd at South point. Mother nature will cause far more damage than a few big boats.
Just to be clear, as the OP--please go back and read the original post. We are simply looking for photos and other info on sources of erosion. This has a very real impact on phosphorous levels which reduce water clarity, increase plant growth, and hurt the general quality of the lake we all love. Our goal is to identify these sources and develop sensible mitigation plans so that the lake is as beautiful for our children and grandchildren as it is for us.

I'm not familiar with Windy Point Rd--but that looks like something we should check out. 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 08-20-2018, 11:28 AM   #85
Lake Winnipesaukee Assoc
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Meredith
Posts: 12
Thanks: 0
Thanked 22 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by debbyi64 View Post
Nice presentation. I will certainly keep an eye out for issues. How can we maintain or build up buffers? Thank you.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
Great question. A few simple things that every shorefront owner can do:

Lots of trees, ground cover, and other plants for the first 25' or so from a rock shore are ideal. So please follow DES rules and do not clear cut. A large perfect green lawn leading directly down into the water is a significant source of phosphorous, but so is bare dirt.

If you use fertilizer, keep it further back from the water and make sure it is phosphate-free. The middle number in the 3 number series on the label should be zero.

If you have a septic, make sure it is serviced regularly.

Lots more information is available here: https://extension.unh.edu/tags/lands...-water-quality
__________________
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 User Says Thank You to Lake Winnipesaukee Assoc For This Useful Post:
TheTimeTraveler (08-20-2018)
Old 08-20-2018, 12:01 PM   #86
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 1,801
Thanks: 167
Thanked 1,180 Times in 441 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApS View Post
Since a 40-foot Tri-Toon would definitely make my "approved ApS list, so "oversized" obviously/intentionally doesn't apply to all boats. Note that even the largest—and most heavily loaded—pontoon boat can't compare with most powerboats half that length in damaging shorelines.
Actually, I have had a number of TriToons come by my place early morning and they put up as much wake as a typically sized 20-23 foot conventional boat. It is easier to see the waves when the water is flat so that is a completely bogus argument. The old school putt putt barges with two logs and a mouse motor I agree throw very little wake but the new ones not so much. However even if everyone on planet APS were to trade in their “oversized” boats for TriToons of an APS “approved” size, you still won’t be happy because according to you the number of boats so bad people are experiencing breathing problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApS View Post
The "bent" tree you refer to had some environmental "upset"; most likely, it lost its soil base as a young tree, then continued growing normally. Most deciduous trees are capable of growing so as to appear contorted.
Most coniferous trees will grow straight; but if their trunks appear bent, it's because of shifting soil or rocks.
So how old would you estimate that bent tree in that photo to be? I’d say 50+ years, let’s go with 50 shall we? So according to your logic, and I’ll stipulate (even though there is 0 proof of this but I digress) for the purposes of this discussion to say this happened in years 0-5 years of its life, after all you said it happened when it was young. This would have happened in 1973 long before there was the large population of APS non approved “oversized” boats as there is today and for all these years it has managed to live a happy and content life. Hmm…. I’d in 50+ years that tree would have been a gonner by now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApS View Post
There's been a confusion of "waves" and "wakes" here.
But as a proponent of "common sense", wouldn't waves and wakes compound one-another, regardless of their direction? Southbound wakes should be expected to add their "throw-weight" to a wave driven by a North wind. Especially a strong wind capable of the erosion suggested here by others.
Yes this does confuse me… wakes are waves. Just man made.
Your “common sense” assumption about compounding waves, either naturally occurring or man made is wrong. Waves on water display similar characteristics of energy or RF waves. They operate at a specific frequency, which varies as to when, where and by what created them, therefore when they cross they continue on. In fact if you look closely on a typical light breeze day you can see the smaller wind driven waves continuing on their path unimpeded by man made waves, and may be travelling in a completely different direction. Furthermore once man made waves are created they are not subject to any kind of amplification. So in time they dissipate lacking a means of amplification. This differs in the case of wind driven waves where the wind acts as a means of amplification to the point where the wave size is a direct match to the amount of amplification they are exposed to, hence when the wind dies down so do the waves. I’m sure there are others on here much smarter than me that can explain the physics of this far better than I can.

BTW here is a photo of a sapling growing at an angle off the shore, one of several. They are growing that way not because of shifting soils, but because they are growing towards the light and where they will not be crowded by other trees. I can tell you for a FACT this soil has not moved in the past 3-4 years which is about the age of that sapling. Just out of the shot here are large hemlock and pine trees that block the sun for the better part of the day.
Attached Images
 
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MAXUM For This Useful Post:
chipj29 (08-21-2018), DEJ (08-20-2018)
Old 08-20-2018, 12:19 PM   #87
The Real BigGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 305
Thanks: 6
Thanked 92 Times in 56 Posts
Default

Maxim, let me ask 2 questions:

1) when two waves,man made or otherwise, of the same frequency & direction coincide what happens? Isn’t the amplitude of the resulting wave the combination of the 2 waves?

2) Isn’t a man made wave subject to the effects of the wind in the same way as a natural wave if that man made wave is moving in the same direction as the wind?


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
The Real BigGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2018, 01:29 PM   #88
Descant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Merrimack and Welch Island
Posts: 1,230
Thanks: 344
Thanked 345 Times in 212 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pine Island Guy View Post
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
paintitrdinHC has the right idea. Bare boarders will likely stay away from shore, thus causing less erosion.
Descant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2018, 05:03 PM   #89
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 1,801
Thanks: 167
Thanked 1,180 Times in 441 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy View Post
Maxim, let me ask 2 questions:

1) when two waves,man made or otherwise, of the same frequency & direction coincide what happens? Isn’t the amplitude of the resulting wave the combination of the 2 waves?

2) Isn’t a man made wave subject to the effects of the wind in the same way as a natural wave if that man made wave is moving in the same direction as the wind?


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
Waves are the visual manifestation of the transfer of energy from a boat to the water as it moves through it.

The water itself as a wave is formed does not move. I know counterintuitive as I would have guessed otherwise. The frequency and wavelength would need to be aligned in order for two waves to be combined, which would mean that their amplitude would need to be identical. The amplitude is the visual representation of the wave size from peak to trough. Thus for them to combine does not mean an increase in size. In order to increase in size the amplitude would need to increase and the only way to do that is to inject more energy much in the way an amplifier works. Keep in mind that the amplitude continually dissipates as the wave travels over distance the wave length flattens out.


Wind is a different story as that causes waves due to the friction of the moving air over the surface of the water. So long as the wind blows that energy is transferred to the water surface. The wind speed along with the distance the wave has to travel will ultimately determine the size of a wind driven wave.

I say this based on my elementary understanding of this as the physics of this is a little above my head in some areas.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to MAXUM For This Useful Post:
DEJ (08-20-2018)
Old 08-20-2018, 05:40 PM   #90
kawishiwi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 387
Thanks: 138
Thanked 87 Times in 59 Posts
Default Waves can combine...

Wave energy can combine.
While @ Popham Beach in Maine we enjoyed 2 ft waves in 2 sets. A small island 'broke' the steady waves into 2 similar wave sets, one from the right side of the island and one from the left. Those 2 wave sets had their direction modified slightly from friction? going around the island so we had chop 'right' & chop 'left' converging on us from 2 angles maybe 30 degrees apart. Occasionally a wave from the two wave sets matched precisely when meeting and create a single vertical pyramid wave of 4ft+ just as it reached the beach. Great fun diving into those until getting SLAPPED down from behind while standing knee deep in 2ft waves but looking back at the beach.
__________________
"We're going to have the best people"
kawishiwi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2018, 06:53 PM   #91
The Real BigGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 305
Thanks: 6
Thanked 92 Times in 56 Posts
Default

When two waves of the same amplitude, traveling in the same direction constructively combine their amplitude is doubled. In other words they get twice as big. Doesn’t matter if they are natural or man made. That is physics.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
The Real BigGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2018, 07:17 PM   #92
The Real BigGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 305
Thanks: 6
Thanked 92 Times in 56 Posts
Default

And a wave created by a boat wake that is pushed by the wind will react in exactly the same way as a naturally created wave pushed by the wind.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
The Real BigGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2018, 07:33 AM   #93
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,163
Thanks: 766
Thanked 366 Times in 270 Posts
Arrow Winter Harbor Has No "Fetch"...

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy View Post
Maxim, let me ask 2 questions:

1) when two waves,man made or otherwise, of the same frequency & direction coincide what happens? Isn’t the amplitude of the resulting wave the combination of the 2 waves?

2) Isn’t a man made wave subject to the effects of the wind in the same way as a natural wave if that man made wave is moving in the same direction as the wind?
• See the two witnessed "wave" events below:

Quote:
Originally Posted by kawishiwi View Post
Wave energy can combine.
While @ Popham Beach in Maine we enjoyed 2 ft waves in 2 sets. A small island 'broke' the steady waves into 2 similar wave sets, one from the right side of the island and one from the left. Those 2 wave sets had their direction modified slightly from friction? going around the island so we had chop 'right' & chop 'left' converging on us from 2 angles maybe 30 degrees apart. Occasionally a wave from the two wave sets matched precisely when meeting and create a single vertical pyramid wave of 4ft+ just as it reached the beach. Great fun diving into those until getting SLAPPED down from behind while standing knee deep in 2ft waves but looking back at the beach.
• Maybe 10+ years ago, I wrote of seeing a "wave" being created that reached 10-feet high. A similar "wave" knocked me off my 18' sailboat.

I had the temerity to leave Winter Harbor just as two cruisers ran in—side by side. I was midway between them, so grabbed a stainless steel shroud to hang on. I was thrown overboard anyway, and fell through a nest of lines that had preceded me into the water. My feet got snagged on the lines, and I was dragged about 100-yards before I could pull myself back on board. Did you know wearing a PFD will "aim" a firehose at your face in this circumstance? I didn't either. I then noticed a yellow aluminum boat standing-by, who'd witnessed the "wave". I waved him (and his concerned-looking dog in the bow) off, thanking him.

• The long version appeared at this forum, but even Google can't find it.

• As we all know, trees grow from a seed. This seed apparently started growing in mid-air. (At the very bottom of the below attachment, my black shoe can be seen under the roots). What happened to this sapling? Well, it was a Maple that was about 50-years old, died, broke off a few years later, and the stump can't be found today.

• A picture of erosion for the OP—and MAXUM-Theorists—follows:
Attached Images
 
ApS is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to ApS For This Useful Post:
FlyingScot (08-21-2018)
Old 08-21-2018, 10:23 AM   #94
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,728
Thanks: 183
Thanked 409 Times in 300 Posts
Default

How do wake shapers work on your shoreline? ....... oopsie-doopsie ..... correctimondo, no? ...... make that ..... How do wake shapers work on inboard boats? (and on your shoreline)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oT4ztgD5508 2:28

Seems like this is an incurable Lake Winnipesaukee water erosion problem that will never-ever get addressed at a State of NH level ..... after all, Lake Winnipesaukee belongs to the people of the great State of New Hampshire ...... just got to build a low rock wall and plants some green plants, to hold that shoreline in place or something ..... build a wall using three dollar, el cheapo, 70-lb paper bags of Quikrete concrete mix; sand-gravel-cement, that sets up very solid inside the brown paper sack, under the water ...... a do-it-one self type of a project ..... just load up the old rowboat with bags of Quikrete and set them down, spaced tight, rip-rap style, along the shoreline ...... build a wall?

For three dollars, you can take a 70-lb bag for a test try-it-out. You pick up the bag, you put it down, under the water; a closed bag and the water seeps through the heavy paper, which sets up the mix, inside the bag and under the water.
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!

Last edited by fatlazyless; 08-21-2018 at 10:53 AM.
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2018, 12:03 PM   #95
ITD
Senior Member
 
ITD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Massachusetts and Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,284
Thanks: 327
Thanked 417 Times in 242 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
How do wake shapers work on your shoreline? ....... oopsie-doopsie ..... correctimondo, no? ...... make that ..... How do wake shapers work on inboard boats? (and on your shoreline)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oT4ztgD5508 2:28

Seems like this is an incurable Lake Winnipesaukee water erosion problem that will never-ever get addressed at a State of NH level ..... after all, Lake Winnipesaukee belongs to the people of the great State of New Hampshire ...... just got to build a low rock wall and plants some green plants, to hold that shoreline in place or something ..... build a wall using three dollar, el cheapo, 70-lb paper bags of Quikrete concrete mix; sand-gravel-cement, that sets up very solid inside the brown paper sack, under the water ...... a do-it-one self type of a project ..... just load up the old rowboat with bags of Quikrete and set them down, spaced tight, rip-rap style, along the shoreline ...... build a wall?

For three dollars, you can take a 70-lb bag for a test try-it-out. You pick up the bag, you put it down, under the water; a closed bag and the water seeps through the heavy paper, which sets up the mix, inside the bag and under the water.
I do believe the bags are lined with plastic now. Bad idea Less.
ITD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2018, 08:06 AM   #96
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 1,801
Thanks: 167
Thanked 1,180 Times in 441 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy View Post
When two waves of the same amplitude, traveling in the same direction constructively combine their amplitude is doubled. In other words they get twice as big. Doesn’t matter if they are natural or man made. That is physics.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
So to get a better understanding of this as admittedly I am NOT an expert on the subject I managed to talk to a friend of mine who is. He's a pretty smart guy so I have no reason to question his ivy league PhD

Now hopefully I don't butcher what he told me as some of it was well over my head.

To set the stage for this, the first has to be made clear. For two waves travelling in the SAME direction to interfere with one another they cannot be of the same frequency otherwise they would travel at the same speed and never interact. That makes sense. They do not have to be of the same amplitude but there is some sort of calculation need to determine if the two wave will in fact constructively combine, superimpose, or remain separate, IE a wave that is travelling in the same direction but does not combine (out of phase vs in phase). Waves that occur within a physical medium such as water have similar characteristics as energy or RF waves but do not necessarily behave exactly the same. That part I did not quite understand the match and science behind it....

One key thing I did get out of our discussion was that in order for two waves to achieve a full combined amplitude they would have to be perfectly in phase with one another, and since they would need to be travelling at different speeds in order to interfere if or when that does happen it would be momentary and not cumulative IE the two combine into one and that one continues on at 2Xs the size. Instead they will interact then continue on at their individual frequency. It is more likely to actually see the combined amplitude of two waves when they travel in opposite directions.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2018, 08:25 AM   #97
Hillcountry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: In the hills
Posts: 1,236
Thanks: 614
Thanked 245 Times in 157 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAXUM View Post
So to get a better understanding of this as admittedly I am NOT an expert on the subject I managed to talk to a friend of mine who is. He's a pretty smart guy so I have no reason to question his ivy league PhD

Now hopefully I don't butcher what he told me as some of it was well over my head.

To set the stage for this, the first has to be made clear. For two waves travelling in the SAME direction to interfere with one another they cannot be of the same frequency otherwise they would travel at the same speed and never interact. That makes sense. They do not have to be of the same amplitude but there is some sort of calculation need to determine if the two wave will in fact constructively combine, superimpose, or remain separate, IE a wave that is travelling in the same direction but does not combine (out of phase vs in phase). Waves that occur within a physical medium such as water have similar characteristics as energy or RF waves but do not necessarily behave exactly the same. That part I did not quite understand the match and science behind it....

One key thing I did get out of our discussion was that in order for two waves to achieve a full combined amplitude they would have to be perfectly in phase with one another, and since they would need to be travelling at different speeds in order to interfere if or when that does happen it would be momentary and not cumulative IE the two combine into one and that one continues on at 2Xs the size. Instead they will interact then continue on at their individual frequency. It is more likely to actually see the combined amplitude of two waves when they travel in opposite directions.

Well...that was 2 minutes of my life, wasted.
Hillcountry is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Hillcountry For This Useful Post:
thinkxingu (09-01-2018)
Old 09-01-2018, 11:58 AM   #98
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,728
Thanks: 183
Thanked 409 Times in 300 Posts
Default

Say, here's something interesting; for $179, shipping included, at Amazon, you can get a

'Sylvan Wave Maker Surf Gate Shaper Wake Surf Wakeboard Wake Boarding Wake System'

which is a somewhat simple wake shaper device that attaches to the side of the boat with two suction grips. They had to be drunk when they thought that name up ......... like, what do we call this thing?

Does this really stay attached and work? Recommended speed is 11-mph.

www.tiny.cc/v6o5jy ..... 28-seconds ..... from Sylvan Wave Maker

Wonder how it would work on a small, light weight boat with a 40-hp outboard for moving along a stand up paddle-boarder?

And, it will float which certainly seems like a very useful feature.

Also, since there's no tow rope is use, a spotter person on board is probably not legally required in NH? The paddle boarder paddles along to the side with the boat wake, and the small light boat slowly powers up to 11-mph .... moving the sup along for the ride?

Will this work ..... SURF'S UP ....... ride the curl?

That 11-mph speed is what's recommended in the Mission youtube above for use with a wake board, so for using it with a sup, which is much larger than a wake board, the speed needed should be a lot slower ......like maybe just 4-mph ....... with that Sylvan Wave Maker attached.

Will this work ...... SURF'S UP ...... ride the curl? ...... and at just 4-mph to propel a sup, it is probably very user friendly to the shore line in terms of not causing erosion .... could probably be done with a 15-hp tiller handle motor and a 14' vee hull equipped with a Sylvan Wave Maker .... on the side ..... crawling along at 4-mph?

One of those Wave Makers installed on the side of a 14' boat moving at 4-mph must have a huge amount of resistance to the water....which is what makes the water curl up and out, on the other side of the boat.
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!

Last edited by fatlazyless; 09-02-2018 at 02:17 PM.
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2018, 07:52 AM   #99
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,163
Thanks: 766
Thanked 366 Times in 270 Posts
Arrow Fighting Phosphorus Flow into the Lake...

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAXUM View Post
Actually, I have had a number of TriToons come by my place early morning and they put up as much wake as a typically sized 20-23 foot conventional boat. It is easier to see the waves when the water is flat so that is a completely bogus argument. The old school putt putt barges with two logs and a mouse motor I agree throw very little wake but the new ones not so much. However even if everyone on planet APS were to trade in their “oversized” boats for TriToons of an APS “approved” size, you still won’t be happy because according to you the number of boats so bad people are experiencing breathing problems.
Usable for cruising, skiing, and towing tubes—IMO—pontoon boats are the most eco-friendly Winnipesaukee powerboat trend in a century.
YMMV

.

So how old would you estimate that bent tree in that photo to be? I’d say 50+ years, let’s go with 50 shall we? So according to your logic, and I’ll stipulate (even though there is 0 proof of this but I digress) for the purposes of this discussion to say this happened in years 0-5 years of its life, after all you said it happened when it was young. This would have happened in 1973 long before there was the large population of APS non approved “oversized” boats as there is today and for all these years it has managed to live a happy and content life. Hmm…. I’d in 50+ years that tree would have been a gonner by now.

Yes this does confuse me… wakes are waves. Just man made.
Your “common sense” assumption about compounding waves, either naturally occurring or man made is wrong. Waves on water display similar characteristics of energy or RF waves. They operate at a specific frequency, which varies as to when, where and by what created them, therefore when they cross they continue on. In fact if you look closely on a typical light breeze day you can see the smaller wind driven waves continuing on their path unimpeded by man made waves, and may be travelling in a completely different direction. Furthermore once man made waves are created they are not subject to any kind of amplification. So in time they dissipate lacking a means of amplification. This differs in the case of wind driven waves where the wind acts as a means of amplification to the point where the wave size is a direct match to the amount of amplification they are exposed to, hence when the wind dies down so do the waves. I’m sure there are others on here much smarter than me that can explain the physics of this far better than I can.


Quote:
BTW here is a photo of a sapling growing at an angle off the shore, one of several. They are growing that way not because of shifting soils, but because they are growing towards the light and where they will not be crowded by other trees. I can tell you for a FACT this soil has not moved in the past 3-4 years which is about the age of that sapling. Just out of the shot here are large hemlock and pine trees that block the sun for the better part of the day.
Because that miserable sapling has been cut back, I suspect it is much older.

It is so weak, it doesn't have the natural immunities to fight what is ailing it. It is so "chewed", I can't tell what species it is.

(Species would help—Is it Witch Hazel, which actively seeks sun—like a vine?)

Contrast your "healthy" shoreline...



...with ours.

Although we're still losing older trees—with their large roots—to boat wake damage, we're fighting further shoreline loss with the intricate and intertwining root structure of shrubbery—including Blueberry and Juniper (the best):



.
__________________
.Sailing—Good for you and good for the world...
ApS 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 01:36 AM.


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

This page was generated in 0.55489 seconds