Marine Patrol in Alton Bay

[Chimi]

I went to dinner with some friends last night at Shibley's in Alton Bay. At about 7:45 (well before official sunset), a marine patrol "attack boat" came cruising into Alton Bay.

Immediately upon their arrival, it looked like they were seeking out targets for harassment. We watched several boats that were going headway speed just get stopped for no apparent reason. Again, it was before sunset, but most of the boats had their lights on. Most of the boats were just small bowriders that seemed to have families on board that were just trying to enjoy a quiet evening on the water. Perhaps all of the boats didn't have proper registration stickers (which we could not see), but I find that hard to believe. One boat came by with blue accent lights on the side of the boat, and blue underwater lights under the swim platform, and he got pinched too. I'd say that was the only reasonable stop that I saw. The marine patrol boat even hung out at a private dock on the east side of the bay, just waiting for someone else to harass. We thought they were going to hassle the owner of the property because they had a single white light on their boathouse. But apparently they were just stalking more prey.

They put on quite a show for the entire restaurant, with most people commenting how unreasonable this all seemed. I agree - why don't they spend more time pinching people that are violating laws and creating danger to others? For a state that relies on tourism, these overzealous tactics by marine patrol leave a bad taste in everyone's mouths. Who wants to get hammered on by a navy seal attack boat when they are just out for a quiet, headway speed cruise at sunset with their families? There were two cops on the boat, so that probably made it more intimidating for the families.

Maybe there is a reasonable explanation for all of this. If so, I would like to hear it.

[tis]

The first thought that comes to my mind is violation of the no wake zone?

[RLW]

Second thought that it could be a routine boat inspection or Shibley's could have hired them to keep their customers entertainment. That way when eating you are more interested in them than you are with the taste of their food.

[ghfromaltonbay]

The Marine Patrol has been much less visible in Alton Bay this summer compared to past years. The week after July 4th we hardly saw the Marine Patrol and there was plenty for them to do. One boater was out every afternoon towing 5 kids with a beige ski boat, 3 on a Big Mabel and 2 on either side on red zip sleds. They spent almost 2 hours each afternoon going from the Mt. Washington dock past Sandy Point, and many of us on shore kept saying "Where is the Marine Patrol?". He had 2 "observers" with him in the boat. Don't know if this clown is still in the area. There are several underage (14 and 15) kids using their parents' jet skis as well. These kids are small for their age, and yet the Marine Patrol never seems to be around when they are buzzing around Sandy Point on the weekends.

[Chaselady]

Maybe they were doing random checks for safety equipment, and oh yeah, maybe boating certificates?

[dave603]

Or maybe they are cracking down because of this:
http://www.wmur.com/news/powerboat-c...161274#!bm6pky

[pcmc]

Sounds like they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

[wickedtravelah]

Originally Posted by pcmc

Sounds like they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

I agree. If they enforce the law, they are government goons attacking your "freedom"..... if you don't see them, they're lazy and out of sight....not doing their jobs.

It's a dangerous job, no matter the assignment. I like to give them the benefit of the doubt.

[RLW]

Originally Posted by wickedtravelah

I agree. If they enforce the law, they are government goons attacking your "freedom"..... if you don't see them, they're lazy and out of sight....not doing their jobs.

It's a dangerous job, no matter the assignment. I like to give them the benefit of the doubt.

So mote it be, amen

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by ghfromaltonbay

One boater was out every afternoon towing 5 kids with a beige ski boat, 3 on a Big Mabel and 2 on either side on red zip sleds. They spent almost 2 hours each afternoon going from the Mt. Washington dock past Sandy Point, and many of us on shore kept saying "Where is the Marine Patrol?". He had 2 "observers" with him in the boat. Don't know if this clown is still in the area.

I guess I'm not getting it, what is wrong with that? It sounds like they were having a lot of harmless fun.

[Slickcraft]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I guess I'm not getting it, what is wrong with that? It sounds like they were having a lot of harmless fun.

Against the law and dangerous that is what is wrong.

How many people can be towed behind a vessel at one time?
No more than two people may be towed behind a vessel at one time whether they are using single or multiple devices.

How many observers do I need while towing a skier or other device?
There must be one observer (not including the operator) for each person being towed. In addition, the observer needs to be at least 13 years of age and physically able to assist.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Slickcraft

Against the law and dangerous that is what is wrong.

NH changed the law a couple of years ago. It now reads:

No more than 6 persons may be towed on one or more inflatable tubes and no more than 2 persons may be towed on water skis, aquaplanes, or other devices from the same motorboat at the same time. When 3 or more persons are being towed, 2 observers, in addition to the operator, shall be in the towing vessel. Such observers shall be 13 years of age or older.

see: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/.../270-d-mrg.htm

[Slickcraft]

Originally Posted by Dave R

NH changed the law a couple of years ago. It now reads:

No more than 6 persons may be towed on one or more inflatable tubes and no more than 2 persons may be towed on water skis, aquaplanes, or other devices from the same motorboat at the same time. When 3 or more persons are being towed, 2 observers, in addition to the operator, shall be in the towing vessel. Such observers shall be 13 years of age or older.

see: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/.../270-d-mrg.htm

Sorry for quoting prior law, so towing 6 kids with only two observers is now legal?

So that must make it safe? Sorry but not with my grandchildren.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Slickcraft

Sorry for quoting prior law, so towing 6 kids with only two observers is now legal?

So that must make it safe? Sorry but not with my grandchildren.

But your grandchildren weren't the ones being towed.

[pcmc]

Originally Posted by Slickcraft

Sorry for quoting prior law, so towing 6 kids with only two observers is now legal?

So that must make it safe? Sorry but not with my grandchildren.

A little bit of a side track from the title, but many feel fun is priceless until something tragic happens then they are left devastated thinking it would never happen to them.
At the same time only having a single person tube to tow, we always see large multi person toys and stare in aw imagining how much more fun it must be having multiple kids having the time of their lives on the water.
I suppose it's what ever the comfort level of those involved is, instead of those watching.

Either way be safe everyone!

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by pcmc

A little bit of a side track from the title, but many feel fun is priceless until something tragic happens then they are left devastated thinking it would never happen to them.
At the same time only having a single person tube to tow, we always see large multi person toys and stare in aw imagining how much more fun it must be having multiple kids having the time of their lives on the water.
I suppose it's what ever the comfort level of those involved is, instead of those watching.

Either way be safe everyone!

We've towed 7 kids on 3 tubes (in another state) many times and it's a blast for all involved. Never had any injuries, just lots of laughing and smiles. Sure kills gas mileage though...

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Slickcraft

Sorry for quoting prior law, so towing 6 kids with only two observers is now legal?

So that must make it safe? Sorry but not with my grandchildren.

I think it's pretty safe. Once you get more than one person on a tube, the ability for them to stay on in radical turns diminishes dramatically, so when you have a big group, the speeds and G forces are, by necessity, much lower.

That said, there's tons of less safe things adults and children can legally do in NH. I bet there are substantially more injuries from team sports, skiing, ATVs, etc. than there are from tubing.

[RailroadJoe]

It is also great to see kids swimming, until one drowns. You will never live it down if it is one of your children..

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by RailroadJoe

It is also great to see kids swimming, until one drowns. You will never live it down if it is one of your children..

I imagine that would be horrible, but I would not want my government to outlaw kids swimming.

[RLW]

Guess I'm wrong as I thought it was a (1) spotter for every 2 people. Am I wrong?? Just a question and thanks for any come back..

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by RLW

Guess I'm wrong as I thought it was a (1) spotter for every 2 people. Am I wrong?? Just a question and thanks for any come back..

You need a maximum of 2 spotters, and then only of you have 3 or more people being towed.

[ApS]

Sorry, I don't know (member) Rusty. I'll just have to forgive his inexperience in boating matters.

Originally Posted by Slickcraft

Sorry for quoting prior law, so towing 6 kids with only two observers is now legal?

So that must make it safe? Sorry but not with my grandchildren.

From my observations from the dock—and from my boats—I agree that towing six kids is a moving hazard. New Hampshire should revert to the original RSA, before we have still another NH law named after the victim(s).

Frequently, one kid will be thrown off in a turn, that kid's tube-partner may fall-off 50 feet later. A third kid will roll off to be picked up with the other two, and still others will stay behind the towing boat. By the time the turn is made, there are kids strung out over 300-500 feet—what's the observer to do?



Even with the 150-foot rule—and in the relative expanse of Lake Winnipesaukee—there are too many other boaters unable to grasp the need of watching for such tiny "hazards".

Isn't it scary that canoes are included in objects boaters "can't see"?

[ghfromaltonbay]

Originally Posted by ApS

From my observations from the dock—and from my boats—I agree that towing six kids is a moving hazard. New Hampshire should revert to the original RSA, before we have still another NH law named after the victim(s).

Frequently, one kid will be thrown off in a turn, that kid's tube-partner may fall-off 50 feet later. A third kid will roll off to be picked up with the other two, and still others will stay behind the towing boat. By the time the turn is made, there are kids strung out over 300-500 feet—what's the observer to do?

The scenario you cite is exactly what I observed with the guy towing 5 kids who looked like pre-teens and younger. When a few flew off they wound up scattered across the bay in front of Sandy Point. It took the driver some time to go back and pick up 3 or 4 kids who were more than 150 feet apart. If anyone was coming around Sandy Point they would not have had a lot of time to react to seeing small heads bobbing in the drink. It seems the driver preferred being out in the middle of the channel rather than staying closer to the western shore where the traffic is much lighter. Must be related to the slalom skier down this way who always likes to drop her ski near the mouth of Sandy Point cove instead of near the western shoreline.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by ghfromaltonbay

T It seems the driver preferred being out in the middle of the channel rather than staying closer to the western shore where the traffic is much lighter.

That is another whole problem. I have seen some real bad boating over the summer. I have stopped getting mad when someone does something dumb, just not worth the aggravation (like the 28' Formula that plowed by me in the graveyard Sunday- I was at no wake at the narrowest point!)

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

That is another whole problem. I have seen some real bad boating over the summer. I have stopped getting mad when someone does something dumb, just not worth the aggravation (like the 28' Formula that plowed by me in the graveyard Sunday- I was at no wake at the narrowest point!)

Can't see you not getting mad Vita. Mellowing a bit are ya?

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Can't see you not getting mad Vita. Mellowing a bit are ya?

Yep, a little I still have a low tolerance for BS though.

[Orion]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

That is another whole problem. I have seen some real bad boating over the summer. I have stopped getting mad when someone does something dumb, just not worth the aggravation (like the 28' Formula that plowed by me in the graveyard Sunday- I was at no wake at the narrowest point!)

I had the exact same thing happen to me there two weeks ago. I slowed to the required no-wake speed in my 18' open-bow fishing boat while some clown in a ~25'-er plowed past me at max wake speed, nearly swamping my boat. He hit all three points: stupid, illegal, and inconsiderate.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

That is another whole problem. I have seen some real bad boating over the summer. I have stopped getting mad when someone does something dumb, just not worth the aggravation (like the 28' Formula that plowed by me in the graveyard Sunday- I was at no wake at the narrowest point!)

If there was nothing within 150' of you, why were you going so slowly?

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

If there was nothing within 150' of you, why were you going so slowly?

It is impossible to run through the graveyard above no wake speed if another boat is passing you coming from the other direction.

The Formula was within 10-15' when it passed (plowed) on my port side. Had the operator planned and throttled back some, he could have stayed on plane/waited until I was through before he even entered (there is plenty of visibility there- I can usually adjust my speed to allow an oncoming vessel time to make it through).

On another note, I saw the MP having a field day in Moultonborough this weekend with 150' rule violations. They were all over the channel in the Ambrose Cove/ Suissevale area.

[tis]

We came back from Moultonboro yesterday and about 15 boats (which seemed to be all together) went flying past us about 20 feet from us. We were going slow so got rocked. Wonder if they eventually got stopped. They seemed to have no clue.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

On another note, I saw the MP having a field day in Moultonborough this weekend with 150' rule violations. They were all over the channel in the Ambrose Cove/ Suissevale area.

I hate it when they, or any other boat operators, position themselves near the center of the "channel", basically forcing people to slow to headway speed for no real reason. There is plenty of room for boats to pass on-plane there, if they stay near the edge of the "channel".

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

It is impossible to run through the graveyard above no wake speed if another boat is passing you coming from the other direction.

The Formula was within 10-15' when it passed (plowed) on my port side. Had the operator planned and throttled back some, he could have stayed on plane/waited until I was through before he even entered (there is plenty of visibility there- I can usually adjust my speed to allow an oncoming vessel time to make it through).

On another note, I saw the MP having a field day in Moultonborough this weekend with 150' rule violations. They were all over the channel in the Ambrose Cove/ Suissevale area.

Thanks for the clarification, I mistakenly thought that you had been passed by someone going the same direction that you were.

[Chaselady]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

It is impossible to run through the graveyard above no wake speed if another boat is passing you coming from the other direction.

The Formula was within 10-15' when it passed (plowed) on my port side. Had the operator planned and throttled back some, he could have stayed on plane/waited until I was through before he even entered (there is plenty of visibility there- I can usually adjust my speed to allow an oncoming vessel time to make it through).

On another note, I saw the MP having a field day in Moultonborough this weekend with 150' rule violations. They were all over the channel in the Ambrose Cove/ Suissevale area.

Isn't easier to just go between Melvin and Chase, rather than the Graveyard?

[tis]

I agree with you Chaselady, it is.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Chaselady

Isn't easier to just go between Melvin and Chase, rather than the Graveyard?

I do sometimes. This time I thought I had it timed right, and after that other thread about the rocks...

We had a great weekend boating, saw a lot of MP sat and sun but only one monday from lees mill to Meredith and back. It got real quiet on the lake later in the day. So much that we idled in from Moultonborough Bay to Ambrose Cove and only were passed twice!

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

I do sometimes. This time I thought I had it timed right, and after that other thread about the rocks...

We had a great weekend boating, saw a lot of MP sat and sun but only one monday from lees mill to Meredith and back. It got real quiet on the lake later in the day. So much that we idled in from Moultonborough Bay to Ambrose Cove and only were passed twice!

Hi! Can you tell me approximately how long it took you to get from Lee's Mills to Meredith and the approximate speed you traveled? I'm debating on keeping my pontoon in Hanson Cove or Long Island and one of the deciding factors is length of time to the main lake. Thanks!

[Orion]

Originally Posted by Chaselady

Isn't easier to just go between Melvin and Chase, rather than the Graveyard?

It's one of the best-marked channels on the Lake, and the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Just stay between the black and red and you'll be perfectly fine and significantly cut the time and gas used to otherwise detour around Melvin.

Of course, you could get real daring and shortcut via the route west of Pistol and Spectacle.......but I wouldn't recommend it. I've personally witnessed two boats wreck their drives going the wrong way through there.

[4Fun]

Originally Posted by Orion

It's one of the best-marked channels on the Lake, and the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Just stay between the black and red and you'll be perfectly fine and significantly cut the time and gas used to otherwise detour around Melvin.

Of course, you could get real daring and shortcut via the route west of Pistol and Spectacle.......but I wouldn't recommend it. I've personally witnessed two boats wreck their drives going the wrong way through there.

The Pistol Island route is fun to take although probably slower over all. It just doesent look like you should go between FL81 and Pistol especially with the Red just west of it.

[depasseg]

Originally Posted by ghfromaltonbay

The scenario you cite is exactly what I observed with the guy towing 5 kids who looked like pre-teens and younger. When a few flew off they wound up scattered across the bay in front of Sandy Point. It took the driver some time to go back and pick up 3 or 4 kids who were more than 150 feet apart. If anyone was coming around Sandy Point they would not have had a lot of time to react to seeing small heads bobbing in the drink. It seems the driver preferred being out in the middle of the channel rather than staying closer to the western shore where the traffic is much lighter. Must be related to the slalom skier down this way who always likes to drop her ski near the mouth of Sandy Point cove instead of near the western shoreline.

How would more spotters or less tubers affect the inattentive driver coming at them? We've already determined anyone is allowed to be in the water, why does it matter if you get there from a tube, boat, or shore? If we are going to change a law, we first have to figure out the problem we need to solve.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by depasseg

How would more spotters or less tubers affect the inattentive driver coming at them? We've already determined anyone is allowed to be in the water, why does it matter if you get there from a tube, boat, or shore? If we are going to change a law, we first have to figure out the problem we need to solve.

Agreed- the onus is on the boat operator (where it belongs). Swimmers are like pedestrians in a crosswalk- they have the right of way, but should take actions and make decisions to make sure they can still cross safely. Being right sometimes means being dead.

[Chaselady]

Originally Posted by ghfromaltonbay

The Marine Patrol has been much less visible in Alton Bay this summer compared to past years. The week after July 4th we hardly saw the Marine Patrol and there was plenty for them to do. One boater was out every afternoon towing 5 kids with a beige ski boat, 3 on a Big Mabel and 2 on either side on red zip sleds. They spent almost 2 hours each afternoon going from the Mt. Washington dock past Sandy Point, and many of us on shore kept saying "Where is the Marine Patrol?". He had 2 "observers" with him in the boat. Don't know if this clown is still in the area. There are several underage (14 and 15) kids using their parents' jet skis as well. These kids are small for their age, and yet the Marine Patrol never seems to be around when they are buzzing around Sandy Point on the weekends.

Sound like there were 3 towables, or am I wrong?

[Farfrumbehavin]

I thought Marine Patrol, like regular police, needed reason to stop you, some probable cause. Maybe not. The only time I have been stopped was on Winnisqaum (spelling) and the officer could not have been any nicer. My bow #'s had faded and were difficult to read. That was his reason to stop me, everything else was in order. My experience with law enforcement has been mixed, there are a few that have caused a bad attitude with some people. There are laws that make no sense that they are expected to enforce. For example, My 10 yr old niece can operate my 20ft 150hp motor boat under my supervision, but my 56 yr old wife ( who has the physical ability to do so and can also see over the windshield) can not. I know sometimes it's the wording and nobody noticed but, in cases like that common sense should prevail and with some LE it simply does not. Now if the guy that stopped me took my fire extingusher and shook it and the indicator needle fell off the shaft because it was corroded, should I get a ticket? The MP that taught the class when I took my boater safety told us he will right you up for this. There are situations where nobody was placed in harms way but, bang, ticket anyway. That kind of crap does not help peoples attitude about them. What we should be doing is all working together to make it a safe activity, and sometimes that means educating people, a needles citation could do more harm than good. Hat's off to the Fish and Game guys at the Laconia and Alton launches, really nice bunch of guys. Doesn't look like LE work to me but they don't seem to mind and they are very helplful like friends should be. Great job guys!

[ghfromaltonbay]

Originally Posted by Chaselady

Sound like there were 3 towables, or am I wrong?

There were 3 towables, one Big Mabel (looks like a floating sofa) and two red sleds (non inflated). It just seemed very dangerous as quite a few times the Mabel went airborne and kids flew up in the air and seemed to land on top of each other when they wiped out. When he lost one kid off the red sled it seemed like no one let the driver know and they travelled quite a distance before circling back for the kid in the water. From our vantage point there were several that looked to be underage to be observers. They always circled back near the Alton Bay fireboat dock to change riders and observers. It may look like a lot of fun, but I would be nervous towing that many small kids if something happened and they all had to be plucked from the drink.

[bigtuna]

Originally Posted by ghfromaltonbay

The Marine Patrol has been much less visible in Alton Bay this summer compared to past years. The week after July 4th we hardly saw the Marine Patrol and there was plenty for them to do. One boater was out every afternoon towing 5 kids with a beige ski boat, 3 on a Big Mabel and 2 on either side on red zip sleds. They spent almost 2 hours each afternoon going from the Mt. Washington dock past Sandy Point, and many of us on shore kept saying "Where is the Marine Patrol?". He had 2 "observers" with him in the boat. Don't know if this clown is still in the area. There are several underage (14 and 15) kids using their parents' jet skis as well. These kids are small for their age, and yet the Marine Patrol never seems to be around when they are buzzing around Sandy Point on the weekends.

Thats because law enforcement typically intervenes after a crime has been committed. The fact is Marine patrol is usually bored to tears and pulling someone over creates a diversion to the tedious nature of there job.

[RLW]

bigtuna, I was just browsing through the forum and noticed that you are fairly new to posting on the forum and glad you have joined us. Have fun and enjoy the Winni Forum while making many new friends.

Thanks for joining and joining in with your comments. Hope to see a lot more of you here on the forum.

[Chimi]

Originally Posted by tis

The first thought that comes to my mind is violation of the no wake zone?

I don't think the boats could have been going any slower. Clearly there was some other motivating factor to all of this.

[tis]

Originally Posted by Chimi

I don't think the boats could have been going any slower. Clearly there was some other motivating factor to all of this.

But were they making a wake?

[pjard]

Nobody has any idea what Marine Patrol was doing out there. Everyone should shut their pie holes. I boat on this lake an average of 5 times per week and I for one am damn glad they are out there. I have NEVER needed them (knock on wood), but I know if I did they would be there within minutes!

[Tank151]

Originally Posted by pjard

Nobody has any idea what Marine Patrol was doing out there. Everyone should shut their pie holes. I boat on this lake an average of 5 times per week and I for one and damn glad they are out there. I have NEVER needed them (knock on wood), but I know if I did they would be there within minutes!

pjard - Folks have a right to voice their opinions here. You weren't there to witness the events nor facts. Now keep your pie hole shut!

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by Chimi

I went to dinner with some friends last night at Shibley's in Alton Bay. At about 7:45 (well before official sunset), a marine patrol "attack boat" came cruising into Alton Bay.

Immediately upon their arrival, it looked like they were seeking out targets for harassment. We watched several boats that were going headway speed just get stopped for no apparent reason. Again, it was before sunset, but most of the boats had their lights on. Most of the boats were just small bowriders that seemed to have families on board that were just trying to enjoy a quiet evening on the water. Perhaps all of the boats didn't have proper registration stickers (which we could not see), but I find that hard to believe. One boat came by with blue accent lights on the side of the boat, and blue underwater lights under the swim platform, and he got pinched too. I'd say that was the only reasonable stop that I saw. The marine patrol boat even hung out at a private dock on the east side of the bay, just waiting for someone else to harass. We thought they were going to hassle the owner of the property because they had a single white light on their boathouse. But apparently they were just stalking more prey.

They put on quite a show for the entire restaurant, with most people commenting how unreasonable this all seemed. I agree - why don't they spend more time pinching people that are violating laws and creating danger to others? For a state that relies on tourism, these overzealous tactics by marine patrol leave a bad taste in everyone's mouths. Who wants to get hammered on by a navy seal attack boat when they are just out for a quiet, headway speed cruise at sunset with their families? There were two cops on the boat, so that probably made it more intimidating for the families.

Maybe there is a reasonable explanation for all of this. If so, I would like to hear it.

Your entire post speaks of resentment toward authority.

"Marine Patrol attack boat"?

"Waiting for someone else to harass"?

"Seeking out targets for harrasment"?

"hassle the owner of the property"?

"stalking more prey"?

You have no idea why they stopped the boats that they stopped and as an uninformed person your complaints are meaningless.

I have been on this lake every summer since 1970 and I appreciate the job that the Marine Patrol does, They seem to realize that everyone is here to enjoy their day and they step in only when necessary. People with the same outlook you have criticize police officers but have no appreciation for what they do or why they do it.

In my opinion the Marine Patrol does a great job of walking the fine line between strict enforcement of every law and maintaining a safe atmosphere on the lake.

Sometimes, when you do not have all of the facts it is best to say nothing!

[jetlag100]

I've been on the lake since 1958..I grew up learning about boating & boats. I freaks me out when I'm out there these days, watching the clowns. I am all for the Marine Patrol stopping boaters. There are so many that don't have a clue. Just the other day I watched a guy go about 30 ft from the shore over near the Barber Pole. Entered the area from the broads and flew down the channel on the wrong side of the buoy, waving, to boot

[LSBA Joker]

Strong supporter of the MP, however, there are always going to be gaps in training and human imperfections which will cause frustration.
Recently, in a NWZ I was at absolute slowest speed, making no more wake than a speeding duck. I was glad to see an MP floating just off the docks since there had been so many no wake violators recently. As I passed to his stern, to my surprise, he waves my over. Stated that I was making a wake and passed 3 boats on the way in.
A. Yes, the bow does part the water, but, my idle speed is such that I get passed Much more often than not in NWZs,
B. actually 3 boats passed in opposite direction. I was the only boat inbound.

He told me to get the idle adjusted or bump in and out of gear. (we're talking single engine bowrider, not Outer Limits)
Bottom line, frustrating, but, no ticket and I chalked it up to being the end of a long day on the water for him, and, overall, yes, I was glad he was there to bust the true offenders.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by LSBA Joker

Strong supporter of the MP, however, there are always going to be gaps in training and human imperfections which will cause frustration.
Recently, in a NWZ I was at absolute slowest speed, making no more wake than a speeding duck. I was glad to see an MP floating just off the docks since there had been so many no wake violators recently. As I passed to his stern, to my surprise, he waves my over. Stated that I was making a wake and passed 3 boats on the way in.
A. Yes, the bow does part the water, but, my idle speed is such that I get passed Much more often than not in NWZs,
B. actually 3 boats passed in opposite direction. I was the only boat inbound.

He told me to get the idle adjusted or bump in and out of gear. (we're talking single engine bowrider, not Outer Limits)
Bottom line, frustrating, but, no ticket and I chalked it up to being the end of a long day on the water for him, and, overall, yes, I was glad he was there to bust the true offenders.

This has never happen in the past, but has been frequent lately. I'm not sure if it is the same officer but he insist I tell my mechanic to adjust my idle speed down. The speed is 600 rpm and I am barely making a ripple. But, if you take a look at his wake, he is not practicing what he preach!

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by LSBA Joker

Strong supporter of the MP, however, there are always going to be gaps in training and human imperfections which will cause frustration.
Recently, in a NWZ I was at absolute slowest speed, making no more wake than a speeding duck. I was glad to see an MP floating just off the docks since there had been so many no wake violators recently. As I passed to his stern, to my surprise, he waves my over. Stated that I was making a wake and passed 3 boats on the way in.
A. Yes, the bow does part the water, but, my idle speed is such that I get passed Much more often than not in NWZs,
B. actually 3 boats passed in opposite direction. I was the only boat inbound.

He told me to get the idle adjusted or bump in and out of gear. (we're talking single engine bowrider, not Outer Limits)
Bottom line, frustrating, but, no ticket and I chalked it up to being the end of a long day on the water for him, and, overall, yes, I was glad he was there to bust the true offenders.

Maybe this particular officer is unaware that you can legally make a wake in a NH "no wake" zone. Anything above 4 MPH on a typical family boat will produce a wake, 6 MPH will produce a very noticeable wake, but it's still legal.

[HomeWood]

What's an "attack boat"? Is it something different from their twin engine ribs or center consoles?

Could this have been the boat the MP was patrolling in?

[tis]

This all proves what I said (and got argued with) in a previous thread that they can and will stop you for making a wake, even if it is a little wake. Many MPs believe a wake is a wake and if it is a no wake zone you should not be making a wake. I happen to agree with them. Most people make a wake through the no wake zones. It depends on the officer how much wake they will allow.

[HomeWood]

You really don't know what they were stopping people for, so the criticism lacks any real validity. Like Fish&Game, MP's budget comes from registrations, fees, licenses, and maybe even fines (correct me if I'm wrong). Unfortunately, that gives an agency like that more incentive to be strict. The law enforcement agency I work for gets it budget from taxes and grants. We do not get anything from fines, the schools and courts do.

Understand that when you suddenly see a "crackdown" like that or even from a local PD it is often in response to a complaint. It is often in response to a complaint from an "important person" who saw one thing they did not like and called another important person. That important person then tells the troops to go "crackdown" to make the important complainant happy. We get this all the time from important local business people, politicians, or friends of those people. Suddenly we are sitting on ABC street running radar because Mrs. Jones who is friends with a city council person says there is a speeding problem there. Then we have to report back with results and there better be some results! Welcome to the world of politics.

Who knows what MP was looking for that evening, but criticizing without any knowledge of their intent is foolish and ignorant. And using terms like attack and harass only cheapens the argument.

[Chimi]

So the best use of MP resources is to "stop" (I will not call it harass) people making a ripple behind their boat and tell them to go have their mechanic adjust their idle? Tell that to the poor guy in the canoe that almost killed yesterday over by Sleeper's island.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Chimi

So the best use of MP resources is to "stop" (I will not call it harass) people making a ripple behind their boat and tell them to go have their mechanic adjust their idle? Tell that to the poor guy in the canoe that almost killed yesterday over by Sleeper's island.

If it were the MP in this case I would have asked the guy in the CANOE, um excuse me sir but being in a canoe between sleepers and Rattlesnake island in the middle of the summer on a Friday afternoon... let me ask you, do you NOT SEE A PROBLEM WITH THIS? I'd have given the guy a ticket for stupidity.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

If it were the MP in this case I would have asked the guy in the CANOE, um excuse me sir but being in a canoe between sleepers and Rattlesnake island in the middle of the summer on a Friday afternoon... let me ask you, do you NOT SEE A PROBLEM WITH THIS? I'd have given the guy a ticket for stupidity.

So your saying someone shouldn't be in a canoe on a weekday between Sleepers and Rattlesnake and somehow this accident is partially the canoeists fault? Tell me your kidding!

First off that area is not nearly as busy as the West Alton side of sleepers and much calmer than the broads side of Rattlesnake. It's a great area for paddling around. I wouldn't, bat an eyelash of canoeing, paddling, whatever in that area during the weekday.

Secondly, that canoeist has the right to be anywhere he dam well wants and certainly doesn't deserve to get run over by some jerk off not keeping watch in a boat.

Sorry Maxum but I couldn't disagree with you more on this one. The guy in the powerboat is 100% the idiot here.

Dan

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

So your saying someone shouldn't be in a canoe on a weekday between Sleepers and Rattlesnake and somehow this accident is partially the canoeists fault? Tell me your kidding!

First off that area is not nearly as busy as the West Alton side of sleepers and much calmer than the broads side of Rattlesnake. It's a great area for paddling around. I wouldn't, bat an eyelash of canoeing, paddling, whatever in that area during the weekday.

Secondly, that canoeist has the right to be anywhere he dam well wants and certainly doesn't deserve to get run over by some jerk off not keeping watch in a boat.

Sorry Maxum but I couldn't disagree with you more on this one. The guy in the powerboat is 100% the idiot here.

Dan

They are both idiots. Look Dan while I get the whole "I have a right" thing, but let's have some sensibility here. A canoe it designed for protected still waters NOT to be used in a large open area of this lake. OK yes at times it can be done safely but those times are far and few between IMHO. Also just because you "can" doesn't mean "you should". However I would tend to give the boat driver some slack (albeit not much) because these people that insist on going out in kayaks and canoes and now to stupid stand up paddle boards... in the middle of the lake in areas where there is a fair amount of traffic and where it can be be VERY DIFFICULT to see them aren't free and clear of responsibility here either. I've come up on kayaks out in the middle of the broads and it scared the hell out of me as I did not see them until I was fairly close and no I'm not driving my boat like hell either.

[Chaselady]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

They are both idiots. Look Dan while I get the whole "I have a right" thing, but let's have some sensibility here. A canoe it designed for protected still waters NOT to be used in a large open area of this lake. OK yes at times it can be done safely but those times are far and few between IMHO. Also just because you "can" doesn't mean "you should". However I would tend to give the boat driver some slack (albeit not much) because these people that insist on going out in kayaks and canoes and now to stupid stand up paddle boards... in the middle of the lake in areas where there is a fair amount of traffic and where it can be be VERY DIFFICULT to see them aren't free and clear of responsibility here either. I've come up on kayaks out in the middle of the broads and it scared the hell out of me as I did not see them until I was fairly close and no I'm not driving my boat like hell either.

It may not make sense to be out in rough, busy waters in a canoe....but they still have the right of way. There are many canoeists on the lake, and kayakers too. Look at all the YMCA camps and groups that send out the campers in droves in all sorts of conditions. It is up to the power boat driver to keep a diligent look-out. The driver of the powerboat is totally the one at fault.

[jrc]

If you read the WMUR article about the canoe and boat accident, it ends with the fact that changes are pending.

They are not going to charge the canoe paddler. They are going to charge the boater and my guess would a little more than failure to keep a lookout. Anyone want to take odds on alcohol being involved?

[Farfrumbehavin]

Originally Posted by Chaselady

It may not make sense to be out in rough, busy waters in a canoe....but they still have the right of way. There are many canoeists on the lake, and kayakers too. Look at all the YMCA camps and groups that send out the campers in droves in all sorts of conditions. It is up to the power boat driver to keep a diligent look-out. The driver of the powerboat is totally the one at fault.

Totally agree, no excuse, however the question is, how do we avoid another mishap? I have also come up onto kayaks that were lost in the chop. I don't travel fast so it's not a problem to me but I have seen kayakers that have a high viz flag on a whip. I hunt and I where orange, I want to be seen, I don't want to get hit by a boat if I'm in a canoe or a kayak. Common sense is every ones responsibility. We try to spot buoys that are on the chart as we navigate the lake and sometimes stop and look around, confused, and OH Yeah, there it is, why couldn't I see that? I know a canoe is not a buoy but a flag would give something that could be seen over a bow that rides high. just sayin.

[tis]

Just saw three skiers behind a boat. I know it's illegal, but I must admit, I enjoyed seeing it. I don't know what harm they were doing and it reminded me of the old days.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by tis

Just saw three skiers behind a boat. I know it's illegal, but I must admit, I enjoyed seeing it. I don't know what harm they were doing and it reminded me of the old days.

Are you sure that is still illegal???

[Chaselady]

Originally Posted by Farfrumbehavin

Totally agree, no excuse, however the question is, how do we avoid another mishap? I have also come up onto kayaks that were lost in the chop. I don't travel fast so it's not a problem to me but I have seen kayakers that have a high viz flag on a whip. I hunt and I where orange, I want to be seen, I don't want to get hit by a boat if I'm in a canoe or a kayak. Common sense is every ones responsibility. We try to spot buoys that are on the chart as we navigate the lake and sometimes stop and look around, confused, and OH Yeah, there it is, why couldn't I see that? I know a canoe is not a buoy but a flag would give something that could be seen over a bow that rides high. just sayin.

Good point. Maybe kayaks and other low to the water craft should have flags. Whoops, that would mean more laws?!!!!
My personal favorite...the fools that were kayaking Wolfeboro Bay during the fireworks finale. With a stern light. Legal, yeah. Would I be so crazy? No.
You can't legislate common sense, just sayin.
But in the meantime you just have to keep your eyes open.

[dickiej]

Vigilance, vigilance, vigilance! Being on the water is a huge responsibility and you must be aware of all that is going on around you all the time! Your head needs to be on a swivel! Down where I live, a newly licensed charter boat captain recently sliced a 16' runabout nearly in half, plowing right into him at 25 knots! Captain of the charter said he never saw him. Really!?

[KayakinKid]

I did some asking around, and come to find out, I know the driver of the boat, who feels awful right now. He's been a long time summer resident here, and knows the lake quite well. I'm told that it was a dark green canoe and neither he nor his passenger was able to spot the canoe in amongst the waves. Having a dark-colored canoe or kayak that's low in the water makes it much more difficult to spot. If the canoeist was wearing dark clothing at the time, that would make him blend in even more.

Fortunately, there were no serious injuries. Canoes can be replaced, people can't.

This accident should serve as a reminder to kayakers and canoeists that brighter is better when on the water. That's why I have a lime green kayak with solas tape, a red PFD with solas tape, white paddles with solas tape on each side, a bright orange boonie hat, and a YakAttack VISICarbon Pro flag/light mounted on the back of the kayak. If for some reason someone doesn't see any of that, there's the whistle and air horn to fall back on.

Just as people drive defensively on the road, kayakers and canoeists also need to paddle defensively when on the water. I've been known to paddle forward like a madman in some instances, and other times I've done a complete 180 and paddled in the other direction in order to put distance between myself and an oncoming boat. When they've passed or turned, then I do another 180 and continue on my way. I may get a little more exercise, but at least I'll get to my destination safely.

[topwater]

Originally Posted by Chaselady

Good point. Maybe kayaks and other low to the water craft should have flags. Whoops, that would mean more laws?!!!!
My personal favorite...the fools that were kayaking Wolfeboro Bay during the fireworks finale. With a stern light. Legal, yeah. Would I be so crazy? No.
You can't legislate common sense, just sayin.
But in the meantime you just have to keep your eyes open.

But they had the right to be there, correct?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Chaselady

It may not make sense to be out in rough, busy waters in a canoe....but they still have the right of way. There are many canoeists on the lake, and kayakers too. Look at all the YMCA camps and groups that send out the campers in droves in all sorts of conditions. It is up to the power boat driver to keep a diligent look-out. The driver of the powerboat is totally the one at fault.

At the time Camp Wyanoke closed in 1975, they had perhaps two dozen canoes. The Camp had keen insight into boating—several directors of maintenance/waterfront/aquatics—even to being overprotective. Each canoe was regularly painted dark green.

What has happened since 1975 to make canoes hard to see?

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by ApS

What has happened since 1975 to make canoes hard to see?

In your case I would say old age.

[Orion]

Originally Posted by Rusty

In your case I would say old age.

Best comeback I've seen in a while.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

They are both idiots. Look Dan while I get the whole "I have a right" thing, but let's have some sensibility here. A canoe it designed for protected still waters NOT to be used in a large open area of this lake. OK yes at times it can be done safely but those times are far and few between IMHO. Also just because you "can" doesn't mean "you should". However I would tend to give the boat driver some slack (albeit not much) because these people that insist on going out in kayaks and canoes and now to stupid stand up paddle boards... in the middle of the lake in areas where there is a fair amount of traffic and where it can be be VERY DIFFICULT to see them aren't free and clear of responsibility here either. I've come up on kayaks out in the middle of the broads and it scared the hell out of me as I did not see them until I was fairly close and no I'm not driving my boat like hell either.

All I can say is wow! "Stupid stand up paddle boards" really?? One of the most selfish posts I have read on this forum in a long time... It's posts like this that make me think the speed limit proponents were right...

No reply needed.

Dan

[AB_Monterey]

I have no issue with MP.

They finally stopped the warnings and started writing up the half-wits who anchor well inside the 150ft markers at the West Alton sandbar. The next day, I walked over and warned a couple boaters who were starting to set up shop there again. Too bad they didn't pay it forward. The pontoon that came in behind them got ticketed an hour later.

I was sitting at my dock in Alton Bay waiting for the fireworks to start on the 12th when I saw MP heading out at headway speed just before Sandy Point. Said to my wife, that guy coming in looks awfully close from here.

Yup. Lights come on. Paperwork is exchanged.

They are doing their job.

[wynndog]

So was this anchor/swim never legal if warnings were given, or is it a new law? Wynn

They finally stopped the warnings and started writing up the half-wits who anchor well inside the 150ft markers at the West Alton sandbar. The next day, I walked over and warned a couple boaters who were starting to set up shop there again. Too bad they didn't pay it forward. The pontoon that came in behind them got ticketed an hour later.

I was sitting at my dock in Alton Bay waiting for the fireworks to start on the 12th when I saw MP heading out at headway speed just before Sandy Point. Said to my wife, that guy coming in looks awfully close from here.

Yup. Lights come on. Paperwork is exchanged.

They are doing their job.

[NH_boater]

They were at WAM sandbar today and said nothing about the multiple 150' violations and said nothing about the multiple 25' violations. The inconsistency bothers me. Busy days or not, week days or not - you never know when they come idling through whether they will act or ignore.

They did warn and move the nice family anchored right in the middle of the WAM channel though. After MP left, the boat moved and anchored closer to shore, still in the channel......They left not long after.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by wynndog

So was this anchor/swim never legal if warnings were given, or is it a new law? Wynn

It's been a law/rule for a long time, the enforcement is unpredictable. Search this forum for "no rafting zone". Lots of discussions...

[Slickcraft]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

They are both idiots. Look Dan while I get the whole "I have a right" thing, but let's have some sensibility here. A canoe it designed for protected still waters NOT to be used in a large open area of this lake. OK yes at times it can be done safely but those times are far and few between IMHO. Also just because you "can" doesn't mean "you should". However I would tend to give the boat driver some slack (albeit not much) because these people that insist on going out in kayaks and canoes and now to stupid stand up paddle boards... in the middle of the lake in areas where there is a fair amount of traffic and where it can be be VERY DIFFICULT to see them aren't free and clear of responsibility here either. I've come up on kayaks out in the middle of the broads and it scared the hell out of me as I did not see them until I was fairly close and no I'm not driving my boat like hell either.

All I can say is I hope that your callous attitude does not result in any harm to others. This lake belongs to all of us.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by tis

This all proves what I said (and got argued with) in a previous thread that they can and will stop you for making a wake, even if it is a little wake. Many MPs believe a wake is a wake and if it is a no wake zone you should not be making a wake. I happen to agree with them. Most people make a wake through the no wake zones. It depends on the officer how much wake they will allow.

In general I agree with your post but you have to remember that you are not alone out there. I have been in the Weirs Channel many times and been behind boats that were going so slow that it was difficult to maintain a heading. This is especially a problem when the current is strong. A boat sitting still in a strong current will still leave a wake.

The boats following you may have a larger profile and be more affected by wind and current. While you think you are doing a great, safe job operating your boat you may be causing problems for others.

So, look behind you and see if you are going so slow that you are causing problems for boats behind you. Not all boats handle the same at low speeds and we all need to be aware of how other boats around us are affected by what we are doing.

[MAXUM]

I'd love to see 2-3 times the number of MP on the lake every weekend over the summer and I don't care if it may seem like harassment to some. As is so very clearly evident by this thread some may "think" they know what the law is but laws do change and maybe you aren't as smart as you think you are! Doesn't matter if you think what you're witnessing is (or not) safe, prudent, legal, or even that it's been that way on this lake since the Indians were here. What matter is these guys are doing their darnedest to make sure that everyone can enjoy the lake in a safe and responsible way within the confines of the law. Thankless job for those guys but I applaud their efforts!

I made the mistake of being out there yesterday afternoon. Now I remember why I don't take the boat anywhere on weekends in the middle of the day. What a zoo. Can't wait till September is all I'm sayin.

[tis]

Most boat will go slow enough without an adjustment to not make a wake. It is just that people are impatient and don't want to go slow enough. And no, I don't think they need to be stopped for a ripple, although I have seen it done, but I think they should be stopped for a small wake. Believe me after people learn that MP is around and are stopping people for making a wake, you won't see any wakes for a while. And when MP is sitting near a no wake zone there are many less wakes. Magically they are able to drive without making a wake!!!!

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by HomeWood

What's an "attack boat"?

I would define that in this case as any MP vessel making repetitive stops for low-risk infractions or subjective enforcements. EG: an officer that has a unique interpretation of a "wake" and wants to play water mechanic.

Personally, I too would like to see more MP presence in some areas and at the same time they should be mindful to not take the "fun" out of the lake, but to ensure that egregious violators are handled.

From the scenario described at the top of this thread, it *appears* that the enforcements cited in Alton Bay were probably not even in the top 10 list of things the MP could have been spending time on. It would also be nice for someone from the Marine Patrol to have more regular presence on this forum, since it is very active and would help both sides (MP and Boater) be better informed about attitudes and issues.

[Chimi]

Originally Posted by HomeWood

What's an "attack boat"? Is it something different from their twin engine ribs or center consoles?

Could this have been the boat the MP was patrolling in?

Sorry, should have called them "assault boats". A striking resemblance to the Navy Seal assault boats.

[Chimi]

Originally Posted by LSBA Joker

Strong supporter of the MP, however, there are always going to be gaps in training and human imperfections which will cause frustration.
Recently, in a NWZ I was at absolute slowest speed, making no more wake than a speeding duck. I was glad to see an MP floating just off the docks since there had been so many no wake violators recently. As I passed to his stern, to my surprise, he waves my over. Stated that I was making a wake and passed 3 boats on the way in.
A. Yes, the bow does part the water, but, my idle speed is such that I get passed Much more often than not in NWZs,
B. actually 3 boats passed in opposite direction. I was the only boat inbound.

He told me to get the idle adjusted or bump in and out of gear. (we're talking single engine bowrider, not Outer Limits)
Bottom line, frustrating, but, no ticket and I chalked it up to being the end of a long day on the water for him, and, overall, yes, I was glad he was there to bust the true offenders.

I would print a copy of these rules and keep them in your boat. The MP has no authority to tell you to go see your mechanic to adjust your idle. According to the definition of Headway Speed (see paragraph VI below), a boat could be operated at 10mph if it is the slowest speed that boat could be operated to maintain steerage. Then the "No Wake Rule" (see paragraph VIII below) just defers back to the Headway Speed rule. Any judge would toss a violation right out under these circumstances.


270-D:1 Definitions. – In this chapter:
I. "Boat'' means every description of watercraft other than seaplanes, capable of being used or used as a means of transportation on the water and which is primarily used for noncommercial purposes, or leased, rented, loaned or chartered to another for such use.
II. "Commercial vessel'' means any vessel carrying passengers for hire as a common carrier of passengers or property.
III. "Commissioner'' means the commissioner of the department of safety.
IV. "Director'' means the director of the division of state police, department of safety.
V. "Division'' means the division of state police, department of safety.
VI. "Headway speed'' means 6 miles per hour or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way.
VI-a. "Inflatable tube'' means an inflatable device manufactured and designed for the specific purpose of towing persons behind a motorboat. Such device shall be manufactured with a point of attachment for a tow line in addition to any safety handles, ropes, or lines, for each person being towed.
VII. "Motorboat'' means any vessel being propelled by machinery, whether or not such machinery is the principal source of propulsion.
VIII. "No wake area'' means an area where a boat is to be operated only at headway speed.
IX. "PFD'' means a personal flotation device of a type approved by the United States Coast Guard.
X. "Person'' means person as defined in RSA 21:9.
XI. "Vessel'' means any type of watercraft used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water, except a seaplane.
XII. "Wake'' means any disturbance created on the surface of the water as a result of combined vessel motion and hull displacement.
XIII. "Water skiing'' means a person being towed behind a moving motorboat on skis or on aquatic equipment designed for towing an aquaplane or any other device, including bare feet of a person, but excluding a person being towed on an inflatable tube or in another boat or motorboat.
Source. 1990, 171:1. 1995, 273:2, eff. July 1, 1995. 2011, 224:268, eff. July 1, 2011. 2012, 168:2, 3, eff. June 7, 2012.

[NH_boater]

I may take a ding for this, if so, that's OK. I think there are MP Officers out there that occasionally make bad calls.

Overall, I think they do a great job and I am very glad to see them on the lake. Whenever they are around, safe passage seems to magically stretch to 150' or 200'. Headway speed seems to slow and most boaters are generally more careful about changing direction, accelerating nearing other boats.

It is a tough job, I am sure and I believe that they do a great job 98% of the time but they do seem to make some bad calls on occasion. Inconsistency is a bit of a pet peeve for me. It is troubling to sit at WAM sandbar on one day with boats stacked up barely 10’ apart and boats clearly anchored inside the 150’ buoy and MP simply cruise through without incident, only to have them warn and ticket the same violations the following day.

They appear to warn/ticket some boats for night/light violations and not others. They give warning to boats that travel too slow in the channels, which is not a violation of which I am aware, and others too fast. It is difficult to hear of them spending time enforcing some laws having little or nothing to do with safety (NWZ & NRZ) while we see dangerous boaters and jet skiers wreaking havoc somewhere else.

I am sure they ignore some violations, like some brilliant maneuvers in the Weirs channel simply because grabbing the violator is more of a disturbance than the violation itself.

I chalk of many of the bad calls as lack of training, looking somewhere else at the time or simply a human mistake that they probably would not repeat. Just like plumbers and carpenters, it is conceivable that there are bad MP’s out there as well. My guess is they would get weeded out over time.

I thank them for the great work they do (98%) and I am glad they are out there keeping control, maintaining the safely and ready to react in an emergency, day or night. Like our land-based Officers and Fire Fighters, they will place themselves in danger to protect the general public.

[whalebackpoint'r]

What is the actual law or rule regarding a boat operator being "responsible" for the wake created by the boat he/she is operating? I have heard the expression "responsible for his/her own wake" but not sure what the word "responsible" implies.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by whalebackpoint'r

What is the actual law or rule regarding a boat operator being "responsible" for the wake created by the boat he/she is operating? I have heard the expression "responsible for his/her own wake" but not sure what the word "responsible" implies.

I think this was addressed in the COREG. I'm going to investigate. This is used frequently in maritime and should be applied on the big lake.

Also there is a COREG regarding breaking rules to get out of 'harm's way'. This incident came up when a small boat made an evasive action to prevent a rouge wave from flooding the boat. Yet the MP sees it differently and cited the operator.

I think both of these should be seriously considered before something actually happen. The latter I believe was presented by SBONH but could not find a sponsor.

[NH_boater]

This is a good question. I think it would be very difficult to prove most circumstances where a specific wake caused damage to another boat.

I was fishing in a kayak in Alton Bay one morning where a 35' Baja Outlaw came into to dock in his slip. He swung by at the perfect speed and the perfect arc to produce a 4' wave coming straight at me. I am pretty sure he was outside the 150' safe passage distance so he was not violating any law that I know. I have a sit-on-top and was able to spin my kayal for a bow first entry. My gear (3 poles, tackle boxes, fish finder, VHF, Phone, anchor, lights, etc.) are all waterproofed and secured fast so other than a good soaking from the neck down, no harm nor damage. I needed to execute a good brace to keep upright as the kayak pitched when the wave hit. The shape, speed and size of the wave ensured I went through it, not over it. (I actually enjoyed the experience as I now better understand what kind of a wave I can recover from without capsizing.)

I sometimes wonder if it was an elderly couple in a canoe, or if my gear was not lashed down, what recourse would be possible. A witness could easily identify the boat, now sitting a half mile away in their slip, and could identify a huge wake clearly from their boat. It was otherwise calm and quiet. Proving this one would seem much, much easier than most. I am sure most incidents are much more difficult to prove.

[whalebackpoint'r]

My concern is when a boat is far less than 150' from the shoreline, traveling at half throttle and putting out a 3' - 4' deep wake. They do it all the time in front of our property. We fasten our boats loosely to survive the wake but sometimes the lines are strained to the limit. Not to mention the erosion that occurs. Many boaters pass us by within 40' to 60' of the shore, dock, swimming area, etc., and don't have a clue what 150' looks like.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by NH_boater

This is a good question. I think it would be very difficult to prove most circumstances where a specific wake caused damage to another boat.

I was fishing in a kayak in Alton Bay one morning where a 35' Baja Outlaw came into to dock in his slip. He swung by at the perfect speed and the perfect arc to produce a 4' wave coming straight at me. I am pretty sure he was outside the 150' safe passage distance so he was not violating any law that I know. I have a sit-on-top and was able to spin my kayal for a bow first entry. My gear (3 poles, tackle boxes, fish finder, VHF, Phone, anchor, lights, etc.) are all waterproofed and secured fast so other than a good soaking from the neck down, no harm nor damage. I needed to execute a good brace to keep upright as the kayak pitched when the wave hit. The shape, speed and size of the wave ensured I went through it, not over it. (I actually enjoyed the experience as I now better understand what kind of a wave I can recover from without capsizing.)

I sometimes wonder if it was an elderly couple in a canoe, or if my gear was not lashed down, what recourse would be possible. A witness could easily identify the boat, now sitting a half mile away in their slip, and could identify a huge wake clearly from their boat. It was otherwise calm and quiet. Proving this one would seem much, much easier than most. I am sure most incidents are much more difficult to prove.

A few years ago, I researched this question of "wake liability", and found only one settled case—ever—which happened on the seacoast of Maine. (A fatality).

You're correct in the "shaping" of wakes. Too often, the wave that's going to get me soaked is one I hear behind me!

___________

An oversized boat that accelerates, turns, or slows down can "shape" a huge wake.

Seen from a distance, one's "at-speed" wake should be free of "curling" waves. As these oversized waves come ashore, they reach shallower water, the wake becomes taller, becomes compressed laterally, and increases the (literal) impact on the shoreline.

Oftentimes, they will "break" even worse when combined with other oversized boats' wakes.The erosive effect on the shoreline is easy to see, and turbidity is even worse when combined with strong winds.

Since north-facing shorelines face the worst of winter's winds for many months, shoreline erosion is minimized by the natural formation of ice. The effects on the lake's tree-line by the summer season of boating—especially large boats—can't be minimized.

Photographically, I'm following the "travels" of a mixed clump of mature shoreline trees. That clump of trees has not only slid further into the lake, it can be expected to collapse entirely into the lake someday soon. Only a mossy bread-basket-sized boulder is keeping the clump from falling even sooner.

A few years ago, I noticed the "lead" tree could not have started growing as close to the water as it was. The two largest trees had been growing "properly" meaning—straight up.

Last year, the trees had taken a "list to port". This June, I noticed that the maple's new leaves that had only just sprouted this spring, were under the surface of the water.

The second photo is of a different maple along our shoreline. (The photo appeared here at the forum about ten years ago).

I'd estimated its age at 50 years—and it couldn't have rooted with its roots suspended over the lake. At that time, all that soil had washed into the lake, and except for two roots, the tree has disappeared. (I'd hoped to count its growth rings).

I can be assured a soaking by the wake I don't see—but hear—behind me!

In short..."Beware the breaking wake".

[codeman671]

I did find this on the Marine Patrol webpage:

•What is the difference between a ski craft and a PWC?
A ski craft is defined as, less than 13' in length as manufactured, capable of exceeding 20 mph, and has the capacity to carry not more than the operator and one other person. There are additional regulations that ski craft operators must follow. A personal watercraft (pwc) has the capacity to carry more than the operator and one passenger and must follow the regulations set forth for a motor boat.

That being said, if a PWC must follow the rules set forth for boats, then including the person on the tube they cannot be over capacity and must save a spot for the rider.

It is not illegal for someone to be floating in the lake on a tube enjoying the day, but in a situation where they are doing watersports behind a vessel the law must be adhered to.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by codeman671

That being said, if a PWC must follow the rules set forth for boats, then including the person on the tube they cannot be over capacity and must save a spot for the rider.

It is not illegal for someone to be floating in the lake on a tube enjoying the day, but in a situation where they are doing watersports behind a vessel the law must be adhered to.

Not trying to be difficult, but can you show me the law that says that? I can't find anything that addresses it.

[Pine Island Guy]

I'm not trying to change the topic or start a new debate, but figured since this thread has already gone way off topic and has been relagated to the basement...

As someone not very knowledgable about the specific rules/regs regarding PWCs (not owning one meself), why is there a dusk to dawn curfew? It seems like many are "boat size" and could support nav lights?

signed - curious PIG

[RailroadJoe]

I still want to know why the steering wheel on all these boats is on the right side. English law maybe?

[Slickcraft]

Originally Posted by RailroadJoe

I still want to know why the steering wheel on all these boats is on the right side. English law maybe?

Laws of physics. Torque of a single prop tilts boat to port. If driver is only one in boat, his/her weight on the starboard side helps level the boat at speed.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Slickcraft

Laws of physics. Torque of a single prop tilts boat to port. If driver is only one in boat, his/her weight on the starboard side helps level the boat at speed.

^This for sure, but also I suspect, because you need to give way to boats that are on a collision course off of your starboard bow. Sitting on the starboard side helps ensure an unobstructed view to starboard.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Dave R

^This for sure, but also I suspect, because you need to give way to boats that are on a collision course off of your starboard bow. Sitting on the starboard side helps ensure an unobstructed view to starboard.

I think you might have it backwards. I believe the law was constructed long after the established right hand driver became standard.

[GodSmile]

Originally Posted by jetlag100

I've been on the lake since 1958..I grew up learning about boating & boats. I freaks me out when I'm out there these days, watching the clowns. I am all for the Marine Patrol stopping boaters. There are so many that don't have a clue. Just the other day I watched a guy go about 30 ft from the shore over near the Barber Pole. Entered the area from the broads and flew down the channel on the wrong side of the buoy, waving, to boot

I have to agree... while the Marine Patrol should NOT be harassing people needlessly there are MORE than ENOUGH idiots out there for them to be dealing with.

[LSBA Joker]

Chimi, thanks, good points, but, just as when stopped on the road, best to stick with, yes sir/no sir, at the scene, and make your valid point later