Ridiculous "No Wake" Declaration

[Just Wonderin]

This morning, a No Wake restriction was placed on Lake Winnipesaukee. But here is what I view as a ridiculous catch. You do not have to comply if you are more than 600 feet from the shoreline.

Then why declare No Wake at all. Does the water miraculously become completely flat after the wake rolls for 600 feet. The lake is still one foot over full lake. We are in a flood state. Don't they get that? Many docks are still under water, many of the trees close to the shoreline have partially submerged bases, with wind or boat wakes, these trees could very easily fall.

Whoever had the insight to make this declaration, should have had the courage to put the lake and shoreline first, and just declare a lake-wide no wake zone.

I think this is Laughable!

I'd like to hear other's views on this declaration.

[Woodsy]

We have a bunch of competing interests, so it is a compromise...

NH had a very lackluster winter tourist season due to lack of snow. Then all of this flood damage. Where is the money supposed to come from to pay for the flood damage and make up the lost revenue? One word... tourists!

600' will dissipate alot of the energy from the wakes of smaller boats... the bigger cabin cruisers have the potential to do some damage.

Woodsy

[LIforrelaxin]

Like most Lake front home owners I am not satisfied with the 600' restriction, but hey at least it is something. And hey after all the people on the islands deserve the right to get to there Homes in a reasonable period of time. So hopefully everyone will obey 600' and it will be a wonderful weekend.

Hopefully in another week this will all be a sad memory. Because I for one have a new boat, so believe me no one is more anxious to be on the water...but for the good of the lake I will wait......

[Bear Islander]

Well Woodsy was right on with his timing. We knew last night but it's basically a Friday announcement.

I can live with this. And perhaps more people will comply with 600' than if it were lake wide.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Just Wonderin

Then why declare No Wake at all. Does the water miraculously become completely flat after the wake rolls for 600 feet. The lake is still one foot over full lake. We are in a flood state. Don't they get that? Many docks are still under water, many of the trees close to the shoreline have partially submerged bases, with wind or boat wakes, these trees could very easily fall.


I'd like to hear other's views on this declaration.

While I think 600 feet is probably inadequate too, I have no data to back it up and have to believe the rule was made in good faith and in everyone's interest, not just the lakefront land owners.

I can't help but think that if an extra 12" of water puts some trees at risk of falling, these are not trees we should put a lot of effort into saving. I say take them down and put something hardier in their place. They were a probably a mistake.

[ApS]

As has become my practise, I stretch out flat on my dock for an hour or so to ease my back—injured in a fall. Yesterday, just a handful of boats passed by.

Bass boats posed no problem, and I was reclined a scant three inches above the lake.

Two "light cruisers" got me scrambling off the dock though, and had passed over ½-mile away. One was about 24-feet long, and the other about 28-feet long, both traveling at- or near- top speed. The dock got soaked.

Originally Posted by Just Wonderin

"...Does the water miraculously become completely flat after the wake rolls for 600 feet...I think this is Laughable!"

Of course it is laughable. Wakes travel for miles.

[tmm366]

My boat produces a very large wake and therefore will not leave the dock while the lake is flooded. Just think of all the gas money I'll save.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

...I can live with this. And perhaps more people will comply with 600' than if it were lake wide.

Last weekend I self-imposed a 500' limit and I was "without a clue" and that was the most polite name, this week you can live with 600'. If you wanted another 100' all you had to do is ask, no need for name-calling.

BTW I think this law is a reasonable compromise.

[JTA]

The edict that I saw from the Safety Department said ... shall not travel faster than headway speed when inside of 600 feet. Now, some people's travel at "headway speed" causes a greater wake than if they were up on plane!! I don't understand why folks don't realize that headway speed = no wake. A boat went by my place yesterday atabout a 30 degree angle to the water .... the resulting wake was huge. I'm sure this person thought he was complying with the law. Arrgh.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Dave R

"...I can't help but think that if an extra 12" of water puts some trees at risk of falling, these are not trees we should put a lot of effort into saving. I say take them down and put something hardier in their place. They were a probably a mistake..."

Lake Winnipesaukee's "mistake in planting" took place on the lake's margins between 50 to 200+ years ago!

[Orion]

I believe this ruling is worse than the voluntary rule. It gives many the very false impression that their wakes are harmless if created more than 600' from shore. Nothing could be further from the truth. Anyone that has sat on a dock for any length of time could attest to that. Many times you'll get a huge wake hitting the dock and there is no boat in sight and there had not been one for some time. These wakes travel for miles with very little reduction over very long distances. More "feel good" legislation.

[Cobalt]

I guess the skeptics are right. "It's all about the dollars."

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jrc

Last weekend I self-imposed a 500' limit and I was "without a clue" and that was the most polite name, this week you can live with 600'. If you wanted another 100' all you had to do is ask, no need for name-calling.

BTW I think this law is a reasonable compromise.

My "without a clue" comment was a response to the idea that docks should be made to withstand anything and that dock owners should be watching over them 24/7 so others can have a joy ride.

However my main point was that dock damage was just one small part of the problem. You were overlooking the environmental impact of high water plus wake.

It was you attitude that was clueless, not the way you operated your boat.

[KonaChick]

I'm wondering if the general boating population has any idea about how stringent the rules are from DES about building a dock. You have to follow strict rules and regulations. DES is there EVERY step of the way making sure you follow these rules..at least they were when we built our docks. I also doubt ANYONE on the lake installed a dock thinking to themselves "I'm going to make sure it's a low as possible so I get flooded every year." That just doesn't hold water! Pun intended!!

[Grant]

And you should see the red tape associated with dock repair.

We have an old, I mean really old (pre-1945) crib dock, and have had to make all sorts of applications for permits related to wetlands impact, etc. - just to repair some ice damage. Had to do the same about 15 years ago when we needed the top few timbers and decking replaced. I appreciate their vigilence, but it seems they should focus more energy toward keeping exotic species out of the lake (zebra mussels, milfoil, rock bass, snake heads...god forbid) and policing the lawn fertilization and septic system leakage. Far more damaging. Oh -- and I heard a lot of Canada Geese up on the Lake in early May. DO NOT let those things establish breeding pairs in the region -- the lake will be useless in no time.

Just my $.02...

[Weekend Pundit]

My family and I were out on the lake yesterday and while a majority of the boaters out there were doing a pretty good job of following the 600' restriction, too damn many went plowing on as if there were no such thing as a no wake zone at all.

On more than one occasion I saw folks cutting close to shore well within 150' while on plane. Others would hit the throttles as soon as they got clear of the No Wake buoys. I saw a couple blow right through the new no wake zone between Governor's and Eagle Island.

Most folks I saw were maintaining headway, but leaving no wake behind them while within 600' of shore. A few came up on plane within 600' (400'-500'), but that might have been a matter of misjudging the distance from shore.

There are only three explanations I can think of for the observed non-compliance:

1. Ignorance of the declaration by the Department of Safety (plausible).

2. Misjudging the distance from shore (also plausible).

3. Arrogance on behalf of the boater in question, believing that the declaration doesn't include them; or total ignorance of the regulations and laws and not wishing to waste the time to know them (more than likely).

I did get the chance to speak to a half dozen of the scofflaws, and all but one of them hadn't heard about the declaration. The last one had thought he was 600 feet from shore (he was just under 300 feet).

The Marine Patrol was kept busy, particularly at the Weirs. One of the MP officers I spoke to there said he'd cited over 30 boaters between 10 AM and 3PM for violating the No Wake declaration as they approached or were departing the Weirs.

[Good N' You?]

I think the Dept of Safety actually made things worse. I saw more boats going at speeds just above planing off. This caused more wakes than if they increased their speed. So people were trying to be cautions and drive slow, but actually were causing more harm than good. I saw about 40% of the boats obey the rule. The rest forgot all the other rules about boating, like 150 feet from other boaters and what a no wake zone marker looks like.

[RumGuy]

As a boater, I would be as concerned about the high water as property owners. The high lake level tends to generate hull cracking debris that is not normally present. I personally would rather thump it that smack it.....

[WakeUp]

I find 2 items about this weekends 600' NWZ wrong:

FIRST: If the Marine Patrol was that serious about what they hoped to accomplish, i.e. shoreline errosion, debris, etc., they would have declared the No Wake Zone earlier in the week, rather than wait until the end of the week. How arrogant to expect people to recieve word in such short notice. How serious could they be?!?!

SECOND: Nobody has mentioned that sustained 20-30 MPH winds can generate MUCH larger waves and cause much greater damage than many, if not ALL, boats could on the lake. Even smaller inlets get beat-up pretty good on a very windy day.

Contrary to what you just read, I'm a HUGE advocate of the Marine Patrol and have great regard for the tough job they face on a daily basis. (My kids could recite the NH Boating Laws and Responsibilities better than many adults.) I think they put the almighty dollar ahead of the real objective in this situation. Again, if they were that serious about their intention, they would have declared the 600' Monday or Tuesday. LET THE WORD GET OUT. I called Gilford MP Thursday to get updated info on the NWZ before heading north for the weekend. I was told there was nothing mandatory, just highly recommened. When stopped on the lake Saturday, the MP did agree with my highly energetic dispute of any sort of ticket...esspecially after duing my due diligence. I showed him my cell phone time and date AND duration of the call to the Gilford MP station. He let me go and joked, "I knew I shouldn't have pulled you over!" (good to see the human side of the MP)

Enough said...

[fatlazyless]

Over by buoy 3 there was a Marine Patrol boat lurking close to Horse Island, looking for violating boaters at about 4pm, on both Sunday and Monday. Issuing a citation takes maybe fifteen minutes and while this is unfolding maybe ten boats go by at headway speed and one perfomance boat blasts past at a high speed, realizes it just passed a flashing blue light-MP boat and slows down. Then it sees the MP is not going to chase it so it speeds up again and leaves the area.
Police work is like duck hunting. A gaggle of ducks flys by and only one duckie gets shot out of the sky. A happy compromise!

[Gavia immer]

You've made an excellent case for a mandatory lake wide no wake zone.

[Drummer Boy]

I was out for the first time this weekend. I would say that I saw about 75% of the boats were observing the NWZ within the 600 ft zone, however I think this was making it worse rather than better because the increasing and decreasing of power created larger wakes. Another observation is the new NWZ between Eagle & Governor's Island. It's impossible to maintain any accurate steerage going through this zone because of all the large wakes being crated on either end of this area. Those properties onshore are going to see greater erosion and wake damage than ever before.

[Phantom]

well, I swore to myself that I would not get into this debate -- but here I am.

Yes, I am an avid & concientious boater (for over 40 years)
No, I am not a New Hampshire resident
Yes, I spend more than 45 days a year boating on Winni (which I believe qualifies me to speak)

Here are my general observations after being on the Lake since last Wednesday!

1) the boating activity was FAR below what I expected (for the Holiday week-end) In fact Thursday/ Friday / Saturday morning -- hardly a boat could be seen -- This was also true oddly enough of Monday as well and our cottage looks right out at FL#1

2) MP was (in my humble opinion) very remiss in the way they issued the 600 foot ruling -- I too checked before departing for the Lake Wednesday and no such requirement was in place - nor was I advised to expect the potential for a 600 foot ruling -- I only found out over-hearing VHF radio chatter on SATURDAY!!

3) MP was very active in enforcing the 600' rule in a number of places - "Barber Pole" to "Hole in the Wall" area, in and around Mark & Timber and behind Sleeper....perhaps there were others but those were spots I personally saw them aggressivley enforcing headway throuhout the week-end.

4) The new NWZ at Eagle was missed by an occasional boater--- to be expected in my opinion, yet they typically "paid the price" as MP was Lurking there most of Sat & Sun. To this topic, I am again a little disappointed in MP for not using the LARGE no wake buoys versus the standard size during the initial season for this "new" area ...... perhaps they don't have them anymore as I also noticed the large ones were also replaced by standard sized markers in the Wiers channell.

5) Prepare yourselves for FL#44 to be the big debate here this Fall

[Lin]

We were up there this weekend and had a great time out on the lake. If it wasn't for this forum though we wouldn't have known about the 600' NWZ. We never saw one sign. We were boating up around the loon sanctuary in Lee's mill though and I don't know if they had signs because apparently the first runabout and the two jet skis didn't adhere to anything like that. In fact they blasted by within 150' leaving mega wakes to rock those house docks out by the channel leaving Lee's Mill. I will say we saw several sticks and branches floating. I think most of the debris was rolling off the docks that were just about out of the water but getting wave action rolling over them. We found several rocks that are usually above water just below the surface.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Phantom

3) MP was very active in enforcing the 600' rule in a number of places - "Barber Pole" to "Hole in the Wall" area, in and around Mark & Timber and behind Sleeper....perhaps there were others but those were spots I personally saw them aggressivley enforcing headway throuhout the week-end.

I saw the MP near Mark only twice since Friday, once putting between Mark and Timber and once flying between Mark and Bear not heading the 600' themselves. I beg to differ about them being active in the places I traveled. I spent a good portion of my weekend as did my neighbors yelling and waving at boats passing by, most of which were not even meeting the 150' rule nonetheless 600'. Many would slow down as if they knew of the rule and that they were being bad, some didn't care or flipped us the bird.

I did not see any MP in Alton Bay on Saturday afternoon although I did notice a Police boat near Sandy Point. Sunday evening there was 1 MP near the Weirs but they were doing noting to stop many offenders that I witnessed in the 15 minutes I spent near Anchor Marine. And then there's Eagle and Governer's, what a horror show that was! The NWZ was not being heeded, forget about 150' or 600' !

[SeaBass]

Quote ......"I spent a good portion of my weekend as did my neighbors yelling and waving at boats passing by"
Hope you and your neighbors enjoyed yourselves!

Don't reply big guy. I know what your going to say, blah,blah, blah,.....It goes around and around and around. I know you probably pay absurd taxes and are very concerned with the natural enviroment of NH. I already heard we are missing a loon or two from last year.

I have had a boat visiting/living on the lake for almost 30 years. I promise I have heard it all.

Maybe there needs to be a rule which contains to size/weight not distance. It is too hard to visualize 600 feet for most people. How about this.... Let me piss off all the people with boats over 28 feet. Lets say boats over 28 feet can't go out on their holiday weekend. Or maybe they only use one motor at a time or maybe anything with a radar arch can't go out on the lake during high water days. How about not letting Rodney Dangerfield put his boat in this overcrowded "not as big as you would like to think" lake. Maybe when you rebuild your dock, make it a little higher this time?

I asked mother nature the other day if she was going to do this raining thing again and she wasn't in the mood to talk about it. But, I did get a definate maybe. She also mentioned that shorelines have eroded all over the planet in the last gazillion years (for all you real estate buffs, supply (land) is going down and demand is going up $$$$ yippea. She was a little upset about the whole Dinosaur extinction thing. But, doesn't think the a bird issue is so big.

Most people don't read this site. Its the same people everyday who give their opinions. Some stink some don't. Conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, drunks, blue collar, white collar, silver spoon fed, hard working, unlucky, lucky, blind, dumb than they think people...etc.

Get off the MP cases. I saw them board at least a half dozen boats. I don't know what they were doing. Maybe getting a drink? Maybe telling them to stay 600 feet off shore when you create a wake? Maybe checking for safety requirements/features. I am sure they do the best they can. Especially with all the self righteous opinionated jerks on OUR lake. If you think you can do better. They are accepting applications and you could legally yell/wave/ticket people.

Just worry about yourselves folks and the world will be a better place!

"Lifes too short.....Don't have a heart attack while yelling/waving/screaming at your fellow americans, because someone might miss you or your tax money" .... Sea Bass 2006 :-)

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by SeaBass

Quote ......"I spent a good portion of my weekend as did my neighbors yelling and waving at boats passing by"
Hope you and your neighbors enjoyed yourselves!

Don't reply big guy. I know what your going to say, blah,blah, blah,.....

After a response like that how can I not respond??

I am not a tree hugger, anti-speed person or anti-powerboater in general, nor have I complained about my eroding shoreline. The 600' NW declaration could have been handled better no doubt. I was not pissing and moaning about MP, I was directing it at the boaters themselves who lack common sense. The 150' law has been around for some time and was broken as much this weekend as ever. The 600' rule was in newspapers, on the radio and TV as well as being discussed plenty at any gas station or marina on the lake. Sure, I am sure there are people out there that did not hear and are not to blame for this but still with the water being as high as it is common sense comes into play.

Was it an inconvenience? Sure as hell was. It made 10 minute rides to shore into 40 minutes but after seeing some of the destruction that has happened it was warranted. And since you show so much concern my dock is fine, thank you. I do find it frustrating when my 6yo is trying to fish off the dock and has to dodge 3' rollers coming in when there is no need for it.

Maybe with the obvious attitude problem and large qty of posts (1) maybe you should stick to the "sea".

[Mee-n-Mac]

I'll add my observations to the above:

1) Boat traffic seemed way down compared to past years. Not sure if it was NWS or gas prices or ??? but there were less boats out and about.

2) Given the late announcement and poor visibility that the NWS declaration had, I was surprised to see so many people aware of it and either complying or trying to. Looking up/down Alton Bay I'd have swagged something like 50 - 60 % awareness, if not actual compliance. As noted above there were some people who were obviously unaware or had no clue as to what 600' is. I have to say these didn't bother me as much as the people who knew they were supposed to be at NWS within 600' but just couldn't get themselves to do actual NWS. I saw a lot of bow high mushers out there. I guess they knew they were supposed to slow down but forgot it was the NW rather than the S part that was the reason. When I get a chance I'll post some pics of the more obvious examples.

3) I also saw a number of people slow down at Sandy Pt (NWS or nearly) only to speed up again south of the Pt where the bay opens up a bit. Same was true of people headed up the bay. I can only deduce that they were aware of the NWS but hadn't figured out that the transition from on - off - on plane is worse than staying on-plane. I suppose I can't blame them as they were following the rule but it's an example of the rule hurting rather than helping.

4) That all said, the winds of last week had already done in a few docks up and down from us. I'm not sure what the Mother Nature to cruiser wake equivalency ratio is, but it's pretty high.

5) The MP was busy Sat, invisible on (late) Sun & Mon. Does anyone know if they're fully staffed at this time of year ?

6) I didn't see as much debris as I saw last weekend. More than usual for this time of year for sure, but all that I saw was small stuff. Except for the 1 large log off the beach in Alton Bay. Or perhaps it wasn't a log ... perhaps it was Winni sunning herself, waiting for some perch to show up on the beach ?

[Sparrow Hawk]

I also was out this weekend on my boat (28 foot cruiser). I certainly followed the rules and feel I had a minimal impact on the environment. However, after reading all the posts on this site I am amazed at the amount of whinning that is going on about shoreline erosion. Am I wrong or are these the same folks that have cut down the majority of the trees along the shoreline and planted lawns? Is it me or am I off base?

[Sparrow Hawk]

Please stop calling the MP about boats in front of your house as it will slow them down when there is a real emergency. Thanks.

Sparrow Hawk

[KonaChick]

Speaking from personal experience...when we built we were allowed to cut down only a certain amount of trees. DES has a forumula for tree removal when building but I don't know what it is. You don't have carte blanch to remove and trees you want to....that's not to say you can't do it illegally.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

Was just watching the 5pm news; here's a clip

http://www.wmur.com/news/9300593/detail.html

Watch the video, Winni.com is featured; interesting to see the screen names scroll by. No comment on the content

[Lin]

That was a pretty good clip. Thanks for passing it along. Interestingly it seems that the media have really grabbed on to the Winni forum whether it be in print or video. Great job all and to Don for letting us all "squack".

[upthesaukee]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

5) The MP was busy Sat, invisible on (late) Sun & Mon. Does anyone know if they're fully staffed at this time of year ?

6)

I would not think that MP is at full staff as yet. They were advertising for full time seasonal back in April with a training start date of 5-22. I think that those trainees (unknown how many) would be still in training, and not out on the lake.

[Just Wonderin]

Originally Posted by Sparrow Hawk

I also was out this weekend on my boat (28 foot cruiser). I certainly followed the rules and feel I had a minimal impact on the environment. However, after reading all the posts on this site I am amazed at the amount of whinning that is going on about shoreline erosion. Am I wrong or are these the same folks that have cut down the majority of the trees along the shoreline and planted lawns? Is it me or am I off base?

We have an island cottage. Our lot was left natural. We have no planted lawn and did not cut down our trees. Our shoreline is lined with blueberry bushes. Our shoreline has taken a beating. As a matter of fact, a large bush, probably 4 feet in diameter, floated past our place this weekend, roots, soil, moss and all. We pulled it out of the lake and tried to replant it on land.

I realize that if you are boating and following the rules (thank you) you may not realize what thousands of wakes actually do to a shoreline (a single boat creates quite a few, not just one). If it really didn't create a problem none of us would be "whining". I haven't heard any shorefront owner saying that it is not a problem, only boaters passing by.

[Lake Lady 6]

There may be some of the McMansions that cut down many trees due to the size of their new home - they had to comply with the DES rules to do this.

As an owner of a 28' cruiser you should be aware that this type of boat throws a huge wake, long after you have passed. This is probably due to the design but this past weekend I did not witness many "cruiser/Carver" type boats on the lake - the few that did pass less than 600' from shore were long gone when the wake rolled in and hit our wall, bouncing over and causing erosion behind the wall. Normally the lake is about 4 - 5' from the wall. The only solution to minimize shorefront damage until the lake is at normal level is a NWZ on the entire lake for weekends. We have lived with this before and it should work again.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Lake Lady 6

There may be some of the McMansions that cut down many trees due to the size of their new home - they had to comply with the DES rules to do this.

As an owner of a 28' cruiser you should be aware that this type of boat throws a huge wake, long after you have passed. This is probably due to the design but this past weekend I did not witness many "cruiser/Carver" type boats on the lake - the few that did pass less than 600' from shore were long gone when the wake rolled in and hit our wall, bouncing over and causing erosion behind the wall. Normally the lake is about 4 - 5' from the wall. The only solution to minimize shorefront damage until the lake is at normal level is a NWZ on the entire lake for weekends. We have lived with this before and it should work again.

The rules allow trees and shrubs to be removed and they allow wakes to be generated. Even when everyone complies with the law, bad things happen.

Not sure allowing big wakes during the week is a good idea. I think a lake wide NWZ all the time until the water subsides is better. Bet it won't happen though.

[Winni]

Originally Posted by Paugus Bay Resident

Was just watching the 5pm news; here's a clip

http://www.wmur.com/news/9300593/detail.html

Watch the video, Winni.com is featured; interesting to see the screen names scroll by. No comment on the content

Cool video clip! Thanks for letting us know. Just wish they had not waited until Wednesday AFTER the holiday weekend to run it and wish they had emphasized the public safety aspects and wildlife threat a little more, but at least they finally did it!

[Winni]

Originally Posted by Phantom

2) MP was (in my humble opinion) very remiss in the way they issued the 600 foot ruling -- I too checked before departing for the Lake Wednesday and no such requirement was in place - nor was I advised to expect the potential for a 600 foot ruling -- I only found out over-hearing VHF radio chatter on SATURDAY!!

I really do not want to continue to debate, but I just wanted to make a suggestion here (see, I'm trying not to be confrontational!). It's not the MPs fault this thing didn't get publicized earlier. I was talking to a Sgt. Marine Patrolman mid-day Friday, and he said he had just been informed by the Governor's office not 5 minutes earlier that the 600' NWZ emergency rule had been put in place. He also said he was told not to publicize it yet and I was actually the first person he had told. Also, it is not up to the MPs to either make the rules or publicize them; it is up the Gov. to make the correct ruling (which he didn't) and to his Public Affairs Office to get the word out (which they didn't).

I agree, the MPs could have handled it better, but we can't fault them for these two things. These are strictly on the Governor's shoulders.

[RI Swamp Yankee]

Originally Posted by Paugus Bay Resident

..... Watch the video, Winni.com is featured;

Looks like WMUR (among others) knows where to find a broad range of opinions and a well run forum that allows for honest difference of opinions. Don works hard to keep it clean and honest.

[Puck]

MJP,

I'm sure the Marine Patrol Sgt you spoke with was telling you what he believed to be accurate information, but I'd take it with a grain of salt. The reason I would doubt his info is that the Governor didn't impose the 600' no wake restriction. The 600' no wake restriction was imposed by the Department of Safety through emergency rulemaking process. If anybody asked that Patrol officers not publicize the restriction it would not have been the Governor's office... It would have been someone from within Safety.

[Gatto Nero]

Originally Posted by MJP

I really do not want to continue to debate, but ...............

I really do not want to start a fire but I have this can of gasoline and a book of matches........

Let it go

[Rattlesnake Gal]

It is my opinion that there should be a set lake level number that is an automatic NWZ for the whole lake. That way there is no conjecture. By the way, this 600’ NWZ just doesn’t work. (And it must be making MP crazy!) Is it my imagination or did this just push everyone to The Broads? Saturday and especially Sunday were unbelievably busy. We gave up waving at strange boaters that were throwing a wake too close to shore. They thought we were being friendly! (Sadly many were closer than 150’.) I don’t understand why they called for no wake in 98 and not now when the lake is higher.

Mee-n-Mac, there has been lots of debris floating in the lake - I’ve been very busy trying to collect it all before it gets to you! The dead, waterlogged tree was exceptionally difficult to deal with. (Thankfully it didn't cause us any damage.) Someone’s old log pile, which has very hefty logs, has been compromised. I have lost count on how many of them I have retrieved. Rattlesnake Guy laughed at me when I suggested we try to find where they are coming from. Many small branches are floating around as well. Be on the lookout. My son and his girlfriend found MP towing a portion of dock from the West Alton sand bar. I’ll try to get her pics.

[Quilt Lady]

I called the Marine Patrol about that large piece of dock (about 15 feet long with 2 vertical dock posts). I'm glad to know they finally grabbed it! I couldn't believe how many boats blew right past it, some pretty close at a pretty good speed. It was an accident waiting to happen.

[Rattlesnake Gal]

West Alton Sandbar had a new addition of a dock!

[LIforrelaxin]

Great picture Rattlesnake Gal....it a good way to show people what is floating around....and man would it hurt to hit that....although the posts act as a good visual aide to see it.....but imagine what is floating with out those visual aids..........

I am bummed that I can not make it to the lake this weekend, but I hope when I return next weekend, paradise will be restored.............

[Sparrow Hawk]

RG:

Thanks for your efforts. Obstacles like those shown in your picture could really do a number on my rig. Maybe it should be required that all lake owners tag their docks with names, addresses, etc. That way, when they broke lose, the MP could know where to assess fines. I am amazed how many shore owners simply don't think it is their responsibilty to control their structures. Thanks again!

[fpartri497]

Originally Posted by Sparrow Hawk

RG:

Thanks for your efforts. Obstacles like those shown in your picture could really do a number on my rig. Maybe it should be required that all lake owners tag their docks with names, addresses, etc. That way, when they broke lose, the MP could know where to assess fines. I am amazed how many shore owners simply don't think it is their responsibilty to control their structures. Thanks again!

excuse me, but your negative post deserves a response, It on most occasions Is not the owners fault that thier dock has been damaged and made to float away. you should rethink your statements before making this kind of a post.

fpartri497

[Gavia immer]

At one time, that dock was floating freely. How many people passed that dock at night, I wonder?

[Sparrow Hawk]

fpartri497:

If there was a fine to be paid, I'm sure dock owners would figure out a way to keep their property out the lake. Property owners need to take responsibilty for their actions before they critizes boaters. It is a two way street!!

[Quilt Lady]

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

How many people passed that dock at night, I wonder?

The answer is "Every single boater who was going between Smalls Cove and Sleepers Island Saturday morning from daybreak until noontime." I know because I watched and was amazed by their blindness. Before you ask me why I didn't go and retrieve it, my boat was in the shop at the time.

[KonaChick]

This debate can go on forever and in circles as it currently is. Let's just come to the conculsion that dock owners should do everything in their power to keep their dock from floating away...and boaters should respect and obey the NWZ law that was put into place last weekend. We really should end this...oh no it's raining again!!

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

This debate can go on forever and in circles as it currently is. Let's just come to the conculsion that dock owners should do everything in their power to keep their dock from floating away...and boaters should respect and obey the NWZ law that was put into place last weekend. We really should end this...oh no it's raining again!!

AAAAAAgreeeeed

[Aquadeziac]

Ya know Chicken Hawk, I can only think that your butt must be talkin here cuz your mouth knows better. We're glad to know youre only worried about the debris doing a number on your rig. You figure you are the only one whose rig stands to get damaged? Maybe if you were at NWS you wouldn't have to worry about "doing a number" on your rig and trying to figure out who else to blame so they can pay for your damage! Take off those tunnell vision glasses! You must be good buddies with jrc.....If it isn't mandatory he doesn't have to obey it, and youre looking for someone to pay for damage to your rig if you hit something you were going too fast to see. I want to take my boat out as bad as anyone else, but I have seen the shore damage first hand and it aint pretty! And as much as it hurts, my boat will stay at the dock until this is over. I consider that my way of personally, however small, trying to help. And that gives me the right to air that opinion.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Aquadeziac

....You must be good buddies with jrc.....If it isn't mandatory he doesn't have to obey it, and youre looking for someone to pay for damage to your rig if you hit something you were going too fast to see. I want to take my boat out as bad as anyone else.....

Don't drag me back into this. If I hit something it's my fault. Never travel so fast that if you see something you can't stop. If it's completely submerged and invisible that's just a risk of boating.

I was obeying my own 500' NWZ when there was no special NWZ and I'm obeying the 600' NWZ now. I'm not going to do everything the goverment urges me to do and I'd be shocked if you or anyone does. I used my best judgement and compromised based on the tradeoffs. My judgement ended up being pretty damn close to the actual law.

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by Dave R

AAAAAAgreeeeed

Thanks Dave R. it's nice to see we can agree on something. Have a great summer!

[Kevin C]

I'm now feeling the love

[Sparrow Hawk]

Aquadeziac:

I think my post clearly stated that both groups should take responsibility for their actions. I am unsure why a position such as this would bother you. It is usually quite evident which structures are vunerable. If every owner did an annual inspection in the late summer, we could avoid some of these dangerous situations.

[Silver Duck]

From one of the other threads, it appears that there is quite a bit of bureaucratic red tape required to get permission to maintain/repair a dock. Do you folks think that this red tape contributes significantly to the number of "rickety" structures on the lake front?

(Before you flame me, I'm well aware that even solid structures have been damaged, and that most shorefront owners keep their docks in good repair. And, since I weekend aboard my boat and spend more time on a dock than most, I'm well aware of just how hard large wakes can slam into a dock! But we all know that the rickety stuctures are out there too!)

Another question is how much hassle you expect the red tape to be in getting your docks repaired once this situation is over?

Since the Forum seems to be drawing a fair amount of media attention at present, would it be a good idea if we all got behind trying to make the repair process a bit easier for you in the wake of this situation?

Silver Duck

[DRH]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

From one of the other threads, it appears that there is quite a bit of bureaucratic red tape required to get permission to maintain/repair a dock.

Another question is how much hassle you expect the red tape to be in getting your docks repaired once this situation is over?

"Shore Things" could probably shed some more specific information on this topic, but in my opinion the permitting process for dock repairs really isn't that onerous. Under the NH DES Wetlands Rule Wt 506.01(e), "The repair of an existing docking structure that meets the criteria in Wt. 303.04(v)" qualifies for the "Permit by Notication" (PBN) process. (The primary gist of Wt. 303.04(v) is that the dock has not previously been abandoned and that the repair will not alter the shape or size of the dock.) The PBN application form is available for download at the NH DES web site (http://www.des.state.nh.us), and complete instructions for completing the application are available there as well. Five copies of the completed application are submitted with the DES application fee ($100, I believe) to your respective Town Clerk's office. Your town's Conservation Commission then reviews the application, approves it, and the Town Clerk then distributes the remaining copies. After 25 days from the filing date, the repairs may begin unless the applicant receives notification to the contrary from the DES. I believe the permit to make repairs is then valid for five years.

This description is very abbreviated, so anyone contemplating dock repairs should consult the DES Wetlands' web site for complete information, filing procedures, and a description of what types of projects qualify for the "PBN" process.

[Gatto Nero]

Originally Posted by DRH

Your town's Conservation Commission then reviews the application, approves it, and the Town Clerk then distributes the remaining copies. After 25 days from the filing date, the repairs may begin unless the applicant receives notification to the contrary from the DES. I believe the permit to make repairs is then valid for five years.

Actually, The waiting period is only 10 calendar days, if the PBN Form contains a waiver of intervention (signature) from the Conservation Commission.

I've done two PBNs in the last 10 months. It's really no big deal. The permit does ask for things like USGS topographic and tax maps but those are easy to find online.

[DRH]

Originally Posted by Gatto Nero

Actually, The waiting period is only 10 calendar days, if the PBN Form contains a waiver of intervention (signature) from the Conservation Commission.

Good point. I was aware that a Conservation Commission's "waiver of intervention" reduced the PBN waiting period to 10 calendar days, but I didn't realize that the definition of "waiver of intervention" was simply a signature! Thanks for the clarification.

[Gatto Nero]

Yeah, by signing in section 9 of the form the Conservation Commission is waiving its right to intervene. I guess that makes it easier on DES and speeds up the process.

Here's the link to a pdf version of the from itself. It's pretty self explanatory.

http://www.des.nh.gov/wetlands/pbn/PBNForm.pdf

[Sparrow Hawk]

So if the permitting process isn't that difficult, my hypothesis about negligent dock owners is probably accurate. I know that the majority of owners do a good job of keeping their structures maintained, but even if only 20% of owners are negligent, there can be a very big problem such as the one that exists today. Based upon this, I think that requiring annual inspections would be a good idea.

[DRH]

Originally Posted by Sparrow Hawk

So if the permitting process isn't that difficult, my hypothesis about negligent dock owners is probably accurate. I know that the majority of owners do a good job of keeping their structures maintained, but even if only 20% of owners are negligent, there can be a very big problem such as the one that exists today. Based upon this, I think that requiring annual inspections would be a good idea.

Actually, your hypothisis about "negligent dock owners" is pretty silly. For a dock to be 100% secure against any type of high water condition or storm, it would pretty much have to be built at least 3 or more feet above the "full lake" level. Think not? Think again. Many docks have little protection from the prevailing northwest wind and waves, or from big northeast waves from where the winds howl during a typical New England "nor'easter". During bad storms, waves can easily build to 3' or higher and they then crash over all docks (and shoreline) they encounter. Yes, many docks are protected by breakwaters, but breakwaters are extremely expensive to construct and the DES has very strict permitting requirements for them. In many areas of the lake, breakwaters are not allowed at all. So in severe weather conditions, even well-designed and structurally sound docks can sometimes be damaged. Next time you get in or out of your boat, think about how high that dock would have to be to be totally secure in all weather or lake level conditions.

I find it interesting that since you joined this Forum on 5/30/06, most of your 11 posts have been negative, critical, or both. How about sitting back and giving some serious thought to the issues being discussed here before you submit your next one?

[Onshore]

DRH and Gatto Negro Thanks guys) have explained the application processes well enough that I'm not go to go into more detail but I would like to offer some other points for people to consider.

Any seasonal dock can be removed and repaired or even completely replaced, without a permit so long as there is no change in the size, location or configuration of the structure. It's a good idea to take photos of the old structure, in place, any time you're going to completely replace it.

Permits are good for 5 years. If you have recieved a permit within the last 5 years to build or repair your structures and you've taken more damage you can repair them again under the same permit (check the expiration date and make sure it is still valid). It is a really good idea to let the local Conservation Commission know that you are going to be working on a pre-existing permit before the neighbors call them and you should post a photo copy of the permit on site as well. Also... make sure you get a permit from the town if necessary.

There is nothing that says you can't get a permit before structures get damaged. Whether you file a Permit by Notifaction or a Minimum Impact Expedited Application the filing fee is $100. While some people may not want to put up money for a permit before they actually need it. Other may think it is worth it to know that if anything (walls, docks, pilings...) is damaged over the next five years they already have the permit in place and can simply find someone to do the work. It can really cut down on your stress level when the time comes. Once you have done the application it is very easy to copy the information and renew it again when it expires in 5 years. Please note that you can not do this for beach replenishment. All permits for beach replenishment carry a specific condition stating they can only be used for sand [B]once.[B]

The Permit by Notifcation and MInimum Expedited Application have the same fee and require all the same information. Other than the timeframes for processing by the state there is only one difference between them. If you file the Notification you receive a letter stating that your Notification was accepted. If you file the Expedited Application you get an actual permitl. If time is not a factor, I personally prefer to have a permit in hand. Having that piece of paper in hand or on site can put a stop to unnecessary problems before they get started. Also a permit is more easily recorded with the Registry of Deeds (this is required for all dock permits and nofications). Having the recorded permit verifying that the structures are all legal can also be very helpful if you ever decide to sell the property. This is something that more and more realtors seem to be looking for these days.

If you have a permit for a new seasonal, hinged pier, the concrete pad is supposed to be reccessed into the bank. This isn't just for the purpose of keeping fill out of the lake...It also makes it far less likely that the ice will "grab" onto it and relocate it. this will save you some sreious headaches in the future.

Sparrow Hawk please keep in mind that for many people their lake property is not their home and that home may be far enough away to preclude checking on their property immediately after ice out. Every dock on the lake is at risk of ice damage, circulator or not. Most people don't realize their dock has been damaged until the first time they come in for vacation, which is seldom before Memorial Day. Unfortunately this year we had an extreme flood event before Memorial Day. Docks which were already weakened by this winter's ice couldn't stand up to the high water and waves hitting them from angles they just couldn't practically be designed to handle. I'm sure that in many cases the owners of the docks would have made necessary repairs to their structures had they had they opportunity, but they just didn't get the chance. On the other hand, there is a small percentage of people who are in fact, just plain negligent.

As for annual inspections... Just who is going to volunteer to pay for that program?

[Gavia immer]

When would "annual" inspections be carried out?

In Summer, when it's too early? Or at Ice-out, when it's too late?

[Just Sold]

Here is the link to the dock and other waterfront regulations:

http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheet...ands/wb-12.htm

I find it to be very informative and helpful for my clients when questions arise.

Here are a few others that are helpful:

New Hampshire Watersheds: http://nhwatersheds.unh.edu/quality.html
UNH Center for Fresh Water Biology: http://cfb.unh.edu/
New Hampshire Shoreland Protection Act: http://www.des.state.nh.us/cspa/cspa_rulelaws.htm
New Hampshire Official List of Public Waters: http://www.des.state.nh.us/asp/cspa/official.asp
NH Restrict Bodies of water (Partial List): http://www.state.nh.us/safety/ss/bodies.html
New Hampshire Fish and Game: http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Fishing/fishing.htm

[Weekend Pundit]

I still plan to keep to headway speed even when we're more than 600' from shore until the lake level comes close to the normal full level. I too saw many wakes traveling much farther than 600'. Friends of mine in Alton Bay had quite a bit of damage done to their dock by wakes generated by boats more than 600 feet from the shore.

It wouldn't surprise me to find that the piece of dock shown in RG's picture belonged to them!

[ApS]

Originally Posted by DRH

"...In many areas of the lake, breakwaters are not allowed at all..."

There are other Winnipesaukee locations, swept by the NW wind's rolling "seas", that are too deep for a maintainable breakwater. (Like my location).

I agree with RG that there should be an automatic NWZ at a certain lake level.

In recent memory, there have been five Winnipesaukee episodes where dock damage has been a factor. Surely flooding of southeastern New Hampshire during the extreme weather events such as we've been having would lead the powers-that-be to maintain a lower lake level. We've all managed to boat in Fall, when the waters are egregiously low.

I can't help thinking that the increase in average boat size hasn't played into the lake-height mix. What is a lakefront owner to do?

This boathouse received two new docks last summer, and was fully cross-braced against a winter's ice that didn't arrive! It doesn't look so "new" today.

[John A. Birdsall]

I would like to take this opportunity to thank those that maintained the NWZ while the lake was high. I think that the waves for the most part deminished as they came in. I have seen the debree in the lake from the shore as my boat is not ready for the water. and some of those logs, wharfs are pretty big. On sat of memorial day a neighbor came over looking for his wharf. I am sure that all owners have done what they thought was necessary to protect and keep their property. Be careful and watch out for those obsticals in the lake. While some may feel its the owners responsibility, I think it is the boaters responsibilty to know where they are going and should make every effort to stay at a headway speed when within 150' of anything in the lake particularly this time of year.