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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-08-2022, 09:37 AM   #1
Lakegeezer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,629
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 331
Thanked 583 Times in 265 Posts
Default Wakesurfing legislation call to action

An alert came out from NH Lakes regarding legislation on wakesurfing. A study has come in that concludes wakesurfing damages the shoreline more than other boats and suggests regulation. Action in Concord will be on February 9'th.

Text from the alert....

The long-awaited, peer-reviewed wave-action study by the University of Minnesota was released this week. It confirms that waves produced during the activity of wakesurfing are measurably larger and more powerful than waves created by non-wakesurf boats in terms of maximum wave height, total wave energy, and maximum power. The study concluded that at least 500 feet are needed for wakesurfing waves to diminish compared to waves created by non-wakesurf boats.

On Wednesday, February 9, at 1:45 p.m., House Bill 1071 relative to wake surfing, is being heard in the House Resources, Recreation, and Development Committee. This bill would require a 250-foot setback for the activity of wake surfing. The data from the Minnesota study indicates a clear justification for increased setbacks for wakesurfing and that 250 feet would not be sufficient to protect lake health.

Wakesurfing is a water sport in which a rider on a surfboard rides the boat’s wake without the assistance of a tow rope. In order for the participant to surf behind the boat without being towed, wakesurfing requires large, enhanced wakes—much larger than wakes required for other tow sports like waterskiing and tubing.

When produced in certain areas, enhanced wakes can erode shorelines and disturb lake bottom sediments—these actions can release nutrients into the water and cause toxic cyanobacteria blooms that are harmful to wildlife, swimmers, and pets. These enhanced wakes can also disturb critical fish and bird nesting habitats, damage shoreline property, and make recreating unsafe for others.

There is strong opposition to this bill. Our lakes—including YOUR favorite lake—need you to write or call the House Resources Committee before Wednesday, February 9, urging them to support this bill with an amendment to reflect this credible, scientific data.

To weigh in on HB 1071. Do one of these today
Send an email to:
HouseResourcesRecreationandDevelopme....state.n h.us.

Mail a letter:
NH House of Representatives
Resources, Recreation, and Development Committee
Legislative Office Building, Room 305

Call committee members:
For phone numbers, see committee member bios

Register in support below. It only takes about 30 seconds. Share this information with your lake association, conservation commissions, and communities—the more who sign in, the bigger our voice!

http://gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/remotetestimony/default.aspx

Here's how to register in support:

Add Your Personal Information
Select Date of Hearing: February 9, 2022
Select the Committee: House Resources, Recreation, and Development
Choose the Bill: HB 1071
Indicate Who You're Representing
Choose Your Position: Support, Oppose, Neutral
__________________
-lg
Lakegeezer is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lakegeezer For This Useful Post:
tummyman (02-08-2022), upthesaukee (02-08-2022)
Old 02-08-2022, 10:47 AM   #2
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,071
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 263
Thanked 885 Times in 639 Posts
Default

Here's a wake boat wave promo video ..... How To Wakesurf Responsibly: Wave Study ..... www.youtube.com/watch?v=daa0U56zvwc .... that was linked from the NH Marine Trades Assoc .... a New Hampshire boat business, political action committee that's been making political contributions of $100 -$200 to Republican state reps for the last 50-plus years .... www.boatingnh.com ..... the opposition to this proposed new wakesurfing legislation

Quikrete scrim rip rap ..... Quikrete makes a 60-lb bag of sand and concrete and gravel in a paper sack that is designed for erosion control along the water's edge and in the water. You position the bag in the water ..... water permeates the paper bag ..... the sand and cement and gravel mix hardens into concrete ..... the paper bag dissolves .... a heavy dark gray lump of cement is left that lasts for years and years ..... erosion control ..... protecting the shoreline from wave action erosion.

It's Quikrete 60-lb scrim rip rap to the rescue ..... build a low, underwater wall along your waterfront shoreline or something! ....
__________________
.... age-70 & suffering terrible chronic tinnitus ... omg!
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2022, 11:19 AM   #3
WinnisquamZ
Senior Member
 
WinnisquamZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,441
Thanks: 151
Thanked 470 Times in 314 Posts
Default

At 250’ you may have a chance to pass this bill. A increase to 500’ will almost guarantee its failure. At 500’ it eliminates the use of a wake boat on most of NH lakes. And limit’s their use on larger lakes to just a few areas. Allowing lake front home owners to modify a shoreline to prevent erosion would be a better all around solution


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
WinnisquamZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2022, 11:27 AM   #4
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,071
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 263
Thanked 885 Times in 639 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WinnisquamZ View Post
Allowing lake front home owners to modify a shoreline to prevent erosion would be a better all around solution
At a price of $3/bag with a 30% discount when purchased by the pallet, the Quikrete scrim rip rap is a doable, do-it-yourself home project. All you need is a small two wheel hand truck, a somewhat strong back, a swimsuit and flip-flops.

It is a very dark gray LUMP of concrete that hugs the sandy lake bottom and resembles a natural NH gray granite. Is lo-price and hi-quality and lasts for 100-plus years in the water of Lake Winnipesaukee. ....
__________________
.... age-70 & suffering terrible chronic tinnitus ... omg!
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2022, 11:34 AM   #5
TiltonBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gilford, NH and Florida
Posts: 2,512
Thanks: 493
Thanked 1,905 Times in 778 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WinnisquamZ View Post
At 250’ you may have a chance to pass this bill. A increase to 500’ will almost guarantee its failure. At 500’ it eliminates the use of a wake boat on most of NH lakes. And limit’s their use on larger lakes to just a few areas. Allowing lake front home owners to modify a shoreline to prevent erosion would be a better all around solution
Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
Changing the shoreline to prevent erosion would address only one part of the problems caused by wake boats. I would be glad to see them gone for good.

The obnoxious loud stereos with speakers mounted up high, sometimes playing "music" loaded with F bombs, disturbs people for miles around. The large wakes cause boats to slam against docks and cause damage to docks as well.

I hope legislation severely restricts the number and activities of wake boats on the lake.
TiltonBB is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to TiltonBB For This Useful Post:
Biggd (02-08-2022), CaptT820 (02-11-2022), Charlie T (02-08-2022), CubRun (02-09-2022), dippasan (02-11-2022), FlyingScot (02-08-2022), Slickcraft (02-08-2022), watermaker (02-08-2022)
Sponsored Links
Old 02-08-2022, 12:15 PM   #6
4 for Boating
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 186
Thanks: 1
Thanked 27 Times in 18 Posts
Default As an aside...

Cannot say this has anything to do with wake boats but over the past 3-4 years if the wind is coming towards our home, we have big clumps of this stuff floating on the surface washing up to the bank. It's called Quillwort and it grows on the bottom and takes hold wherever it lands. I just cannot understand where this stuff is coming from (origin) as once it takes root I sort of doubt a wave would uproot it. More like a boat tearing through the stuff or someone digging it up. I can say on busy days - wind going east to west > it's like a flotilla as I catch it with a fishing net and discard.
Attached Images
 
4 for Boating is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2022, 01:51 PM   #7
tummyman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 647
Thanks: 159
Thanked 538 Times in 181 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WinnisquamZ View Post
At 250’ you may have a chance to pass this bill. A increase to 500’ will almost guarantee its failure. At 500’ it eliminates the use of a wake boat on most of NH lakes. And limit’s their use on larger lakes to just a few areas. Allowing lake front home owners to modify a shoreline to prevent erosion would be a better all around solution


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
250 ft would do little. I have seen the wakes roll in from at least that distance and it does not reduce the problem. At 500 ft, it would get them out of the small coves and into broader expanses of water. Any lake less than 1000 ft wide is just a puddle ! Come on man !!
tummyman is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to tummyman For This Useful Post:
CubRun (02-09-2022)
Old 02-08-2022, 02:28 PM   #8
Winnisquamer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Winnisquam
Posts: 408
Thanks: 72
Thanked 115 Times in 73 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltonBB View Post
Changing the shoreline to prevent erosion would address only one part of the problems caused by wake boats. I would be glad to see them gone for good.

The obnoxious loud stereos with speakers mounted up high, sometimes playing "music" loaded with F bombs, disturbs people for miles around. The large wakes cause boats to slam against docks and cause damage to docks as well.

I hope legislation severely restricts the number and activities of wake boats on the lake.
News flash… We will all be dead before these boats go away…. They are only going to get more popular.
Winnisquamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2022, 03:26 PM   #9
mswlogo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 653
Thanks: 196
Thanked 222 Times in 143 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
Here's a wake boat wave promo video ..... How To Wakesurf Responsibly: Wave Study ..... www.youtube.com/watch?v=daa0U56zvwc .... that was linked from the NH Marine Trades Assoc .... a New Hampshire boat business, political action committee that's been making political contributions of $100 -$200 to Republican state reps for the last 50-plus years .... www.boatingnh.com ..... the opposition to this proposed new wakesurfing legislation

Quikrete scrim rip rap ..... Quikrete makes a 60-lb bag of sand and concrete and gravel in a paper sack that is designed for erosion control along the water's edge and in the water. You position the bag in the water ..... water permeates the paper bag ..... the sand and cement and gravel mix hardens into concrete ..... the paper bag dissolves .... a heavy dark gray lump of cement is left that lasts for years and years ..... erosion control ..... protecting the shoreline from wave action erosion.

It's Quikrete 60-lb scrim rip rap to the rescue ..... build a low, underwater wall along your waterfront shoreline or something! ....
I hope your joking. You want everyone to pour concrete all over their frontage just so a 1% can play? Not to mention the music usually blasting. Not to mention it’s illegal.

It’s a bit confusing but I think the current intent (depending on what side you’re on on this) is to NOT let what’s pending pass because it’s not restrictive enough.
EDIT - I hate this stuff. Those concerned with surfing impact SHOULD support the bill with an Amendment that it should be 500 ft. I guess. Ugh.

I get it. Folks paid $100K plus for surfing. It looks like a blast honestly. I’d LOVE to try it my self. I totally respect them wanting to allow surfing.

But it just causes to much harm for everyone else.

If you are in a small boat near one of these it’s a train wreck.

I wish they would outright ban them.

If they do allow it, I want a property tax rebate for the damage or work to prevent damage. And surfers should be paying the difference.
mswlogo is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mswlogo For This Useful Post:
CaptT820 (02-11-2022), CubRun (02-09-2022)
Old 02-08-2022, 03:30 PM   #10
garysanfran
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Francisco/Meredith
Posts: 1,318
Thanks: 499
Thanked 581 Times in 285 Posts
Default

I saw a swimmer once get caught between a boat and the dock it was tied to when one of these things went by. By diving under the dock, as the tied boat slammed into the dock, he was barely able to avoid some serious injury.

Didn't Meredith Marina sponsor a wake board event after petitioning the State to get the NWZ extended beyond their docks? Then they held the event on another part of the Lake? They claimed the large wakes were a safety hazard at their fuel docks. And they convinced the State to extend the NWZ...That petition should be used as evidence.

They sell wake boats that they deemed to be a hazard at their own docks, which means they are a hazard at all docks.
__________________
Gary
~~~~_/) ~~~
~~~~~~~~
garysanfran is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to garysanfran For This Useful Post:
Biggd (02-08-2022), Charlie T (02-08-2022), CubRun (02-14-2022), lakewinnie (02-08-2022), mswlogo (02-08-2022)
Old 02-08-2022, 04:39 PM   #11
codeman671
Senior Member
 
codeman671's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,975
Thanks: 158
Thanked 584 Times in 355 Posts
Thumbs down

I guess we fall into the minority on this thread. My kids surf and wakeboard and we have a new surf boat coming this season. That being said, we ride in wide open areas- mainly off the east side of Bear and far offshore at that. And we don't crank the stereo, honestly I never play it for the riders.

We stay well away from shore and from other boats. For some reason we seem to be magnets, as there can be nobody else around and wide open water surrounding us, but frequently we are buzzed by other boats. Cruising along at 11mph its pretty easy to see us.

Lets figure out how to enforce existing boating laws before enacting other feel good ones that won't get enforced.

Maybe start with sitting a patrol boat in front of MP to bust all of the 150' rule breakers. We got swamped countless times last season coming out of Smith Cove.
codeman671 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to codeman671 For This Useful Post:
Blyblvrd (02-08-2022), Descant (02-08-2022), upthesaukee (02-08-2022)
Old 02-08-2022, 05:22 PM   #12
Winni P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Saunders Bay
Posts: 90
Thanks: 122
Thanked 16 Times in 12 Posts
Default Link to the actual study

https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstrea...=1&isAllowed=y

Interesting that they only compared a few wakeboats to a few "traditional recreation boats that pull skiers and tubers".

How about comparing them to the large cabin cruisers that plow through the lake and throw HUGE wakes? I think that is very important information for Winnipesaukee.
Winni P is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Winni P For This Useful Post:
Blyblvrd (02-08-2022), garysanfran (02-08-2022)
Old 02-08-2022, 05:40 PM   #13
mswlogo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 653
Thanks: 196
Thanked 222 Times in 143 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by codeman671 View Post
I guess we fall into the minority on this thread. My kids surf and wakeboard and we have a new surf boat coming this season. That being said, we ride in wide open areas- mainly off the east side of Bear and far offshore at that. And we don't crank the stereo, honestly I never play it for the riders.

We stay well away from shore and from other boats. For some reason we seem to be magnets, as there can be nobody else around and wide open water surrounding us, but frequently we are buzzed by other boats. Cruising along at 11mph its pretty easy to see us.

Lets figure out how to enforce existing boating laws before enacting other feel good ones that won't get enforced.

Maybe start with sitting a patrol boat in front of MP to bust all of the 150' rule breakers. We got swamped countless times last season coming out of Smith Cove.
It does look like a blast but not all boaters are mindful.
New proposed restrictions shouldn’t impact you then.

I’m sure it’s worse on Winni.

Big problem is enforcement. That’s why rules need to be simple and obvious from a distance.
mswlogo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2022, 06:02 PM   #14
Descant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Merrimack and Welch Island
Posts: 3,433
Thanks: 999
Thanked 1,298 Times in 829 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winni P View Post
https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstrea...=1&isAllowed=y

Interesting that they only compared a few wakeboats to a few "traditional recreation boats that pull skiers and tubers".

How about comparing them to the large cabin cruisers that plow through the lake and throw HUGE wakes? I think that is very important information for Winnipesaukee.
I won't defend cabin cruisers here, but this bill is state wide. There are few, if any, cruisers on other lakes. Wake boats can be anywhere, including on lakes of <300 acres.
Descant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2022, 06:04 PM   #15
LakeDad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 127
Thanks: 2
Thanked 34 Times in 27 Posts
Default

If you want to address this topic due to erosion, you might have a valid, environmentally based argument.

But as soon as you add:
“And loud radio, and F bombs, and…”
You immediately discount your argument and degrade your status to “get off my lawn”. Nobody is going to listen to you if you take this approach.

If you want to create some type of decibel based sound ordinance, handle that separately, but don’t expect much traction, as enforcing it (outside of the sandbar) is nearly impossible.

We live in a world with others and the lake already has arguably too many rules. In the 80’s, I used to love watching power boats rip across the broads approaching 3 digit speeds. Now, it’s a rare sight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
LakeDad is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to LakeDad For This Useful Post:
CubRun (02-14-2022), garysanfran (02-08-2022), MRD (02-09-2022)
Old 02-08-2022, 07:08 PM   #16
TiltonBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gilford, NH and Florida
Posts: 2,512
Thanks: 493
Thanked 1,905 Times in 778 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winni P View Post
https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstrea...=1&isAllowed=y

Interesting that they only compared a few wakeboats to a few "traditional recreation boats that pull skiers and tubers".

How about comparing them to the large cabin cruisers that plow through the lake and throw HUGE wakes? I think that is very important information for Winnipesaukee.
Here is the difference: The large cruisers may pass by when they go somewhere and may pass by on their return. The wake boats will stay in one area while everyone has a turn. The waves washing up on the front lawns, the boats smashing against the docks, and the loud stereos can last for hours. I have had to go inside my house, close the windows, and turn the TV volume up while I waited for the clowns to go home.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LakeDad View Post
If you want to address this topic due to erosion, you might have a valid, environmentally based argument.
But as soon as you add:
“And loud radio, and F bombs, and…”
You immediately discount your argument and degrade your status to “get off my lawn”. Nobody is going to listen to you if you take this approach.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It is my hope that the people who will vote on this legislation may read the comments on this website, and realize that wakes are not the only problem created by these boats. This is just an additional negative aspect.
Maybe it will prompt them to vote the right way. With any luck, maybe they will add language further restricting the use of wakeboats on the lakes.
TiltonBB is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to TiltonBB For This Useful Post:
garysanfran (02-08-2022)
Old 02-08-2022, 07:37 PM   #17
John Mercier
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 1,524
Thanks: 0
Thanked 298 Times in 248 Posts
Default

I think it would be different legislation.

I believe the PWC still use the 300' rule due to the erosion from wake they cause... not sure if it would go more than that for a bigger vessel.

Noise is a bit different.
Legally, they could float right next to the house in the No Wake/Headway area and blast the radio... so that has to be less about distance from shore than a dB limit.
But with all the different sourcing... it would be tough to enforce.
John Mercier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2022, 07:43 PM   #18
mswlogo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 653
Thanks: 196
Thanked 222 Times in 143 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltonBB View Post
Here is the difference: The large cruisers may pass by when they go somewhere and may pass by on their return. The wake boats will stay in one area while everyone has a turn. The waves washing up on the front lawns, the boats smashing against the docks, and the loud stereos can last for hours. I have had to go inside my house, close the windows, and turn the TV volume up while I waited for the clowns to go home.


It is my hope that the people who will vote on this legislation may read the comments on this website, and realize that wakes are not the only problem created by these boats. This is just an additional negative aspect.
Maybe it will prompt them to vote the right way. With any luck, maybe they will add language further restricting the use of wakeboats on the lakes.
One problem is, boat owners from all over the whole state get their vote/voice counted just as much as the fraction of folks that actually live on the lakes.

And we know how loud many (I didn't say all) WakeSurfers like to be
And to their credit they are very organized.

And I'm sure most of the small vessel owners (off lake) don't even know it's happening because they don't have such a large investment.

It will be a miracle if it goes through.
mswlogo is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to mswlogo For This Useful Post:
DotRat (02-08-2022)
Old 02-08-2022, 09:22 PM   #19
Lakegeezer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,629
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 331
Thanked 583 Times in 265 Posts
Default Lake Aging

There is an increased understanding of the economic value of water quality in the Lakes Region. Lake Winnipesaukee Association recently published a study on that. While swimming, boating, fishing, vacation homes and more are attractions, people prefer to do it in clear water.

Many things degrade water quality. The overall trend is towards lake eutrophication, or aging. Aging can't be stopped but it can be sped up or slowed down. When a lake ages, its water quality declines, and vice-versa. Areas with lower water quality generally have lower economic activity. The question is how fast will any water body age to the point of economic downturn and where should the government add regulations. The State of NH owns most of the water bodies after all. It should have a say in how it is used.

The proposition in this legislation is that wakesurfing is a outlying contributor to lake aging and should be regulated.

Cruisers and commercial craft, even the marine patrol, leave large but infrequent wakes, especially in the sensitive coves. Winnipesaukee is still pristine in many areas, but noticeably aging in others. Winnipesaukee can handle wake boat traffic in the wide open areas, but some water bodies already see accelerated aging, likely due to watershed development. Many things impact water quality and many things are already regulated. In this case, there is a higher risk of water bodies having a algae crisis if a higher wake intensity is introduced. A 500 foot distance from shore requirement would restrict wakesurfing on smaller water bodies yet allow it on lakes that can support it, like Winnipesaukee.

Political parties sometimes agree on measures to protect the state's ecology and along with it the economic driver it provides. Hopefully this is one of those cases.

I've submitted my testimony via the web site referenced and encourage you to do it too. Deadline is tomorrow (2/9)
__________________
-lg
Lakegeezer is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Lakegeezer For This Useful Post:
DotRat (02-08-2022)
Old 02-08-2022, 10:40 PM   #20
mswlogo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 653
Thanks: 196
Thanked 222 Times in 143 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakegeezer View Post
There is an increased understanding of the economic value of water quality in the Lakes Region. Lake Winnipesaukee Association recently published a study on that. While swimming, boating, fishing, vacation homes and more are attractions, people prefer to do it in clear water.

Many things degrade water quality. The overall trend is towards lake eutrophication, or aging. Aging can't be stopped but it can be sped up or slowed down. When a lake ages, its water quality declines, and vice-versa. Areas with lower water quality generally have lower economic activity. The question is how fast will any water body age to the point of economic downturn and where should the government add regulations. The State of NH owns most of the water bodies after all. It should have a say in how it is used.

The proposition in this legislation is that wakesurfing is a outlying contributor to lake aging and should be regulated.

Cruisers and commercial craft, even the marine patrol, leave large but infrequent wakes, especially in the sensitive coves. Winnipesaukee is still pristine in many areas, but noticeably aging in others. Winnipesaukee can handle wake boat traffic in the wide open areas, but some water bodies already see accelerated aging, likely due to watershed development. Many things impact water quality and many things are already regulated. In this case, there is a higher risk of water bodies having a algae crisis if a higher wake intensity is introduced. A 500 foot distance from shore requirement would restrict wakesurfing on smaller water bodies yet allow it on lakes that can support it, like Winnipesaukee.

Political parties sometimes agree on measures to protect the state's ecology and along with it the economic driver it provides. Hopefully this is one of those cases.

I've submitted my testimony via the web site referenced and encourage you to do it too. Deadline is tomorrow (2/9)
Keep in mind the bill is not directly trying to prevent wake surfing on smaller bodies. It’s only proposing increasing safer distant from 150 to 250 ft. Not 500 ft.

I agree 500 ft would be better and would rule out some smaller bays and lakes. And folks are arguing to extend it to 500 ft.

I don’t disagree wake surfing does probably contribute to aging. But it’s hard to prove and a weak argument. Lawns, chemicals on those lawns and run off from those lawns are probably the #1 reason. Even lawns further up the mountains around the lakes are aging it. Poor rules from decades ago around septic systems is probably #2. Stirring up the water is probably way down the list.

I think sticking with safety and erosion are more direct and immediate consequences that can be debated. Aging will be a LOT harder. We’ve had significant aging long before the wake surfing was even a thing.
mswlogo is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to mswlogo For This Useful Post:
I.C.Isles (02-09-2022)
Old 02-09-2022, 09:56 AM   #21
LakeDad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 127
Thanks: 2
Thanked 34 Times in 27 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltonBB View Post
Here is the difference: The large cruisers may pass by when they go somewhere and may pass by on their return. The wake boats will stay in one area while everyone has a turn. The waves washing up on the front lawns, the boats smashing against the docks, and the loud stereos can last for hours. I have had to go inside my house, close the windows, and turn the TV volume up while I waited for the clowns to go home.


It is my hope that the people who will vote on this legislation may read the comments on this website, and realize that wakes are not the only problem created by these boats. This is just an additional negative aspect.
Maybe it will prompt them to vote the right way. With any luck, maybe they will add language further restricting the use of wakeboats on the lakes.

Bluntly, to me, it just makes you sound grumpy and illogical. Win with logic and focused topic. Environment is a hot one right now.

As soon as most people see the “those damn kids and their rock’n’ roll music.” they’ll disengage, especially in a hall meeting. Logic and topic…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
LakeDad is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to LakeDad For This Useful Post:
mswlogo (02-09-2022), Reilly (02-15-2022)
Old 02-09-2022, 10:26 AM   #22
TiltonBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gilford, NH and Florida
Posts: 2,512
Thanks: 493
Thanked 1,905 Times in 778 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LakeDad View Post
Bluntly, to me, it just makes you sound grumpy and illogical. Win with logic and focused topic. Environment is a hot one right now.
As soon as most people see the “those damn kids and their rock’n’ roll music.” they’ll disengage, especially in a hall meeting. Logic and topic…
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Grumpy? Yup,you got me! At least ten years of listening to and observing these wake boats and their negative impact has certainly shaped my outlook.

Illogical? I think not. If you want the legislation to pass you may as well cite every reason, not just one reason. The more evidence you can present that these boats are a problem the better chance there is that the legislation will pass.

Focused topic? The topic: Wake boat legislation doesn't change. There are just additional reasons it should pass.
TiltonBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2022, 11:29 AM   #23
mswlogo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 653
Thanks: 196
Thanked 222 Times in 143 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltonBB View Post
Grumpy? Yup,you got me! At least ten years of listening to and observing these wake boats and their negative impact has certainly shaped my outlook.

Illogical? I think not. If you want the legislation to pass you may as well cite every reason, not just one reason. The more evidence you can present that these boats are a problem the better chance there is that the legislation will pass.

Focused topic? The topic: Wake boat legislation doesn't change. There are just additional reasons it should pass.
If you throw to many reasons it’s looks like you are trying to find something to stick because you don’t have a solid reason.
mswlogo is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to mswlogo For This Useful Post:
Reilly (02-15-2022)
Old 02-09-2022, 12:51 PM   #24
FlyingScot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 1,889
Thanks: 960
Thanked 811 Times in 495 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mswlogo View Post

I don’t disagree wake surfing does probably contribute to aging. But it’s hard to prove and a weak argument. Lawns, chemicals on those lawns and run off from those lawns are probably the #1 reason. Even lawns further up the mountains around the lakes are aging it. Poor rules from decades ago around septic systems is probably #2. Stirring up the water is probably way down the list.
Aging might be harder for people to see, but it is not hard to prove--it's very well documented that erosion and the chemicals and septic issues you mention all speed the time that a lake can go from beautiful to a marsh. These things all need attention.

You might check out the Lake Winnipesaukee Association website, as geezer suggested, and also Google Lake Champlain water quality to learn more
FlyingScot is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to FlyingScot For This Useful Post:
Winnaholic (02-16-2022)
Old 02-09-2022, 01:50 PM   #25
Winni P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Saunders Bay
Posts: 90
Thanks: 122
Thanked 16 Times in 12 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltonBB View Post
Here is the difference: The large cruisers may pass by when they go somewhere and may pass by on their return. The wake boats will stay in one area while everyone has a turn. The waves washing up on the front lawns, the boats smashing against the docks, and the loud stereos can last for hours. I have had to go inside my house, close the windows, and turn the TV volume up while I waited for the clowns to go home.
Maybe in your part of the lake. Unfortunately, where we are located there is heavy cabin cruiser traffic all day long...
Winni P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2022, 02:30 PM   #26
chachee52
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Tyngsboro, MA and Gilford, NH
Posts: 285
Thanks: 4
Thanked 58 Times in 45 Posts
Default

I have a friend that has a wakesurfing boat, and i participate regularly and it is fun!!! They are on a smaller pond with many other of these boats on it. Is ir wrecking the pond? YES. He was one of the complainers of errosion until he did it and he loved it and bought the boat.
I guess how do you just say wakesurfing boats with the big waves when there are lots of other people boating with the bow up not on plane that are creating a big wake too? And forget about Winni, in smaller lakes/ponds where people just go in circles for a bunch of laps doing this. Doesn't that too create errosion?
The noise thing? Throw it out. I sit at night on the lake all summer and the pontoon boats that I can hear from LSP out to the Witches are just as bad, not JetSkis have sound systems and they are running back and forth in front of places as well. I'm not complaining about them, it is what it is. Just like Motorcycles with sound systems, I can hear them up and down my neighborhood from the main road all night too. There are laws about Db levels in NH. No need to add more laws that are already there. Just because it doesn't get inforced doesn't mean it's not a law.
I agree, focus on the main concern and don't bring up little things to confuse the issue or the issue will never get "fixed"
chachee52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2022, 03:01 PM   #27
TiltonBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gilford, NH and Florida
Posts: 2,512
Thanks: 493
Thanked 1,905 Times in 778 Posts
Default

Quote:
Maybe in your part of the lake. Unfortunately, where we are located there is heavy cabin cruiser traffic all day long...
You location puts you either on Dockham Shore Road or Varney Point.

Did you buy your home before or after Mountain View and Silver Sands opened for business?
TiltonBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2022, 03:04 PM   #28
boat_guy64
Senior Member
 
boat_guy64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Windham and Meredith
Posts: 224
Blog Entries: 5
Thanks: 33
Thanked 88 Times in 41 Posts
Default Wake boat wakes or Sophie and Doris

Living in a community with multiple beaches and waterfront I will have to say that when the Sophie and Doris were running full force they caused much more damage that the wake boats. When they used to run full force between Meredith and the Weirs during bike week, they did a lot of damage. They would cause more damage during bike week than all the rest of the boats for the rest of the year. I've seen a lot less damage the past two years with them not running much even with the additional wake boats. Disclaimer.....I'm too old and fat to wakesurf and don't own a wake boat. But I do sit on the beach.
boat_guy64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2022, 03:23 PM   #29
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kuna ID
Posts: 2,754
Thanks: 245
Thanked 1,931 Times in 801 Posts
Default

This no doubt will get about as heated as the speed limit debate.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2022, 03:53 PM   #30
upthesaukee
Senior Member
 
upthesaukee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Alton Bay
Posts: 5,465
Blog Entries: 2
Thanks: 2,255
Thanked 1,851 Times in 1,034 Posts
Default

Do I miss having a boat? Yes. Are there irritants that no longer bother me now that I don't have a boat? Yes.

I don't miss the wakeboard boats tossing me around like a bobber when I'm anchored in a cove. I don't miss the boats who plow all over the lake in a bow high attitude (me too Chachee). I usually don't have a problem with cabin cruisers, even in Sanders Bay because they never seem to be in a rush to get anywhere. Sophie and Doris, now there is a whole different, but the same, problem.

In all the years of boating, what I really wish was enforced is responsibility for one's own wake. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how enforceable that would be be. There's so many complaints about the 150' rule "being ignored" by MP. Let's give them something else that is equally as difficult to enforce. But I'd still like to see an effort made.

End of rant and back to the wakeboard boat bill.

Dave
__________________
I Live Here... I am always UPTHESAUKEE !!!!
upthesaukee is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to upthesaukee For This Useful Post:
DRH (02-12-2022)
Old 02-09-2022, 04:02 PM   #31
tummyman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 647
Thanks: 159
Thanked 538 Times in 181 Posts
Default

Did anyone listen in to the hearing today? Any outcome?
tummyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2022, 05:39 PM   #32
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,071
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 263
Thanked 885 Times in 639 Posts
Default

https://www.facebook.com/eastcoast.flightcraft/ probably knows all about it .... someone here, give them a friendly phone call! ....

Don't they support the WeirsCam or something with a place to put it? ....

Hey there FlightCraft ..... you want to stop selling those eighty thousand dollar wake boats and bring back the three dollar miniature golf! Miniature golf is a real sport while wake boarding is just an activity! .....
__________________
.... age-70 & suffering terrible chronic tinnitus ... omg!
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2022, 07:40 PM   #33
chachee52
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Tyngsboro, MA and Gilford, NH
Posts: 285
Thanks: 4
Thanked 58 Times in 45 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
Hey there FlightCraft ..... you want to stop selling those eighty thousand dollar wake boats and bring back the three dollar miniature golf! Miniature golf is a real sport while wake boarding is just an activity! .....
$80k? lol, your funny!!!!! Try $100 - 200K for most of them!!!!!


That's going to start a whole new debate about the price, i know.
chachee52 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to chachee52 For This Useful Post:
codeman671 (02-10-2022)
Old 02-09-2022, 09:34 PM   #34
mswlogo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 653
Thanks: 196
Thanked 222 Times in 143 Posts
Default

Here is the hearing. It starts about 4 hrs in and goes for 2 hours.

https://youtu.be/XNzW7TinlcQ

Didn’t see any vote or anything. Just arguments for and against.

One person asked about invasive species type problems.

And the answer was a huge eye opener.

You know how careful NH is on boats being cleaned coming and going.

How the hell do you clean the INSIDE of a BALAST TANK. You can’t !!!
So they could suck in an invasive species from one lake and dump it in another.
Or bring problems that are in one part of the lake to another.

50 years from now people will laugh that these things were ever allowed.
mswlogo is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to mswlogo For This Useful Post:
FlyingScot (02-10-2022)
Old 02-09-2022, 10:06 PM   #35
John Mercier
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 1,524
Thanks: 0
Thanked 298 Times in 248 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAXUM View Post
This no doubt will get about as heated as the speed limit debate.
Probably so.
Whether anyone likes it or not, we are going to have more activity on the lakes... which generally means more waves and more noise.
John Mercier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2022, 10:11 PM   #36
John Mercier
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 1,524
Thanks: 0
Thanked 298 Times in 248 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mswlogo View Post
Here is the hearing. It starts about 4 hrs in and goes for 2 hours.

https://youtu.be/XNzW7TinlcQ

Didn’t see any vote or anything. Just arguments for and against.

One person asked about invasive species type problems.

And the answer was a huge eye opener.

You know how careful NH is on boats being cleaned coming and going.

How the hell do you clean the INSIDE of a BALAST TANK. You can’t !!!
So they could suck in an invasive species from one lake and dump it in another.
Or bring problems that are in one part of the lake to another.

50 years from now people will laugh that these things were ever allowed.
They don't hold committee votes in public session. They have a special executive session where several bills are discussed among the committee and votes are taken. The bill then enter the CC *Consent Calendar* with a committee recommendation of OTP, OTP-A (Amended), or ITL.
John Mercier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2022, 01:54 PM   #37
Flotnjr
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 46
Thanks: 1
Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mswlogo View Post
Here is the hearing. It starts about 4 hrs in and goes for 2 hours.

https://youtu.be/XNzW7TinlcQ

Didn’t see any vote or anything. Just arguments for and against.

One person asked about invasive species type problems.

And the answer was a huge eye opener.

You know how careful NH is on boats being cleaned coming and going.

How the hell do you clean the INSIDE of a BALAST TANK. You can’t !!!
So they could suck in an invasive species from one lake and dump it in another.
Or bring problems that are in one part of the lake to another.

50 years from now people will laugh that these things were ever allowed.
Typically most of these boats stay on a body of water- not a lot go from lake to lake. If transmitting invasive species is an issue- I would look at fishing boats more than boats with a ballast tank. These boats tend to be in the murky, shallow water more than any other boat. Livewells would be a bigger culprit than any ballast boat. Most of these boats are trailered. BUT- that's not what the bill is about...
Flotnjr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2022, 03:51 PM   #38
FlyingScot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 1,889
Thanks: 960
Thanked 811 Times in 495 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flotnjr View Post
If transmitting invasive species is an issue- I would look at fishing boats more than boats with a ballast tank.
This type of reasoning--"fishing boats are worse..."--is a roadmap to always do nothing. No matter what the issue, there's always somebody or something that is worse.

We should be tougher on everybody who might be transporting milfoil, and everybody who might be causing excessive erosion, and everybody who makes the lake way less pleasant for everybody else. Wake boats do all 3 of these things
FlyingScot is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to FlyingScot For This Useful Post:
DotRat (02-12-2022), mswlogo (02-12-2022), TiltonBB (02-12-2022), trfour (02-12-2022), tummyman (02-12-2022)
Old 02-14-2022, 08:11 PM   #39
LakeDad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 127
Thanks: 2
Thanked 34 Times in 27 Posts
Default

This is very unlikely to get any traction.
Noise, etc. are super weak arguments and diminish the movement.

Erosion is a legitimate concern, but that could easily become about all boats. Do you want that?

Careful what you wish for. It’s usually best to err on the side of freedom, as legislation, once given a heading, likes to eat until it’s big and fat.
LakeDad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2022, 08:21 PM   #40
John Mercier
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 1,524
Thanks: 0
Thanked 298 Times in 248 Posts
Default

Actually erosion and noise can be considered a property loss.
My freedom doesn't allow me to be destructive to my neighbor's property or for them to lose the peaceful enjoyment of such.
John Mercier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2022, 08:49 PM   #41
chachee52
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Tyngsboro, MA and Gilford, NH
Posts: 285
Thanks: 4
Thanked 58 Times in 45 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mercier View Post
Actually erosion and noise can be considered a property loss.
My freedom doesn't allow me to be destructive to my neighbor's property or for them to lose the peaceful enjoyment of such.
Actually I was told by a cop that a party playing loud noise all day behind my house (not at the lake) was perfectly legal until late at night, I think it was 10pm. Then I could call it in as a noise complaint. So per that, I would say that you DO NOT have the right to a "peaceful enjoyment of such"
I also bring back my point that all the pontoon boats now with the sounds systems and Jet skis make just as much music noise. Not to mention not all the boats with the sound bars over head are Wakesurfing boats, some are just regular boats or regular ski/wakeboarding boats.
chachee52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2022, 09:06 PM   #42
John Mercier
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 1,524
Thanks: 0
Thanked 298 Times in 248 Posts
Default

MP would be responsible.
You could also file a suit under the tort laws against the State of NH under Part First Article 2-A. The court would then decide for the State or send it back to the Legislature for immediate relief.

You would use the statute NH RSA 270:37 as fact that the Legislature has intent to limit the noise coming from a vessel.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...270/270-37.htm

There is no other reason to actually require muffling exhaust in the case of a water vessel that I can think of. And the muffler requirements do not state only after dark or any other period of enforcement limitation.
John Mercier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2022, 10:48 PM   #43
LakeDad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 127
Thanks: 2
Thanked 34 Times in 27 Posts
Default

Like I said: Be careful what you wish for.
All boats technically “destroy your property”, no?
We are talking about a spectrum here.

This is how some lakes end up “no boats with motors”.
Wouldn’t the lake be cleaner with less erosion with no boats at all? Be careful of the heading you choose.

And “enjoyment” varies by the user. What about THEIR enjoyment? I don’t have or want a wake boat, FWIW.
I’m looking at this without bias.
LakeDad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2022, 11:29 PM   #44
John Mercier
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 1,524
Thanks: 0
Thanked 298 Times in 248 Posts
Default

All boats cause erosion, but boats distinctly made to increase waves by definition distinctly cause more erosion. Since PWC are already restricted beyond headway speed within 300 feet of shore, and are much smaller in displacement... it would not be unreasonable to expect the Legislature to set the same standard for a vessel distinctly designed to create increased wave action.
John Mercier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2022, 05:55 AM   #45
thinkxingu
Senior Member
 
thinkxingu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 5,241
Thanks: 1,104
Thanked 1,690 Times in 1,036 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mercier View Post
All boats cause erosion, but boats distinctly made to increase waves by definition distinctly cause more erosion. Since PWC are already restricted beyond headway speed within 300 feet of shore, and are much smaller in displacement... it would not be unreasonable to expect the Legislature to set the same standard for a vessel distinctly designed to create increased wave action.
Not exactly. "Ski craft" must be 300' away, but that only applies to one or two-seaters. PWCs with 3 seats are defined and regulated as boats, which means 150'.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
thinkxingu is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to thinkxingu For This Useful Post:
upthesaukee (02-15-2022)
Old 02-15-2022, 12:52 PM   #46
FlyingScot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 1,889
Thanks: 960
Thanked 811 Times in 495 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LakeDad View Post
Erosion is a legitimate concern, but that could easily become about all boats. Do you want that?
I think we all want a clean and beautiful lake, protected from milfoil and cyanobacteria. If somebody told me that my boat was causing much more damage than most, I'd change my boat and/or behavior
FlyingScot is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to FlyingScot For This Useful Post:
CubRun (02-15-2022)
Old 02-15-2022, 02:38 PM   #47
LakeDad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 127
Thanks: 2
Thanked 34 Times in 27 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingScot View Post
I think we all want a clean and beautiful lake, protected from milfoil and cyanobacteria. If somebody told me that my boat was causing much more damage than most, I'd change my boat and/or behavior

That’s going to be fishing boats.
They hop lake to lake the most (by a landslide).

They should be flushing the bilge and live wells after every dip. Hot water, bleach, flush, and let fully dry before the next launch.

Enforcing this is super difficult unless the boat and trailer look like hanging gardens
LakeDad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2022, 03:33 PM   #48
FlyingScot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 1,889
Thanks: 960
Thanked 811 Times in 495 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LakeDad View Post
That’s going to be fishing boats.
They hop lake to lake the most (by a landslide).

They should be flushing the bilge and live wells after every dip. Hot water, bleach, flush, and let fully dry before the next launch.

Enforcing this is super difficult unless the boat and trailer look like hanging gardens
Absolutely, fishing boats have lots of potential to transport milfoil. But the erosion caused by wake boats and others with large wakes increases the phosphorous in the lake, and that's what drives the growth of the milfoil and cyanobacteria already in Winni. We need to address both
FlyingScot is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2022, 08:21 PM   #49
mswlogo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 653
Thanks: 196
Thanked 222 Times in 143 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LakeDad View Post
This is very unlikely to get any traction.
Noise, etc. are super weak arguments and diminish the movement.

Erosion is a legitimate concern, but that could easily become about all boats. Do you want that?

Careful what you wish for. It’s usually best to err on the side of freedom, as legislation, once given a heading, likes to eat until it’s big and fat.
I didn’t see any arguments around noise.

Most arguments were discomfort to those within tidal wave range and it was only asking the range be increased to 250ft

All those against were arguing $$$, mostly folks that sell the boats with really weak arguments.
mswlogo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2022, 09:11 PM   #50
FlyingScot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 1,889
Thanks: 960
Thanked 811 Times in 495 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mswlogo View Post
I didn’t see any arguments around noise.

Most arguments were discomfort to those within tidal wave range and it was only asking the range be increased to 250ft

All those against were arguing $$$, mostly folks that sell the boats with really weak arguments.
Exactly--kind of like the BS with last year's special commission where half the people on it depended on boat sales for their living
FlyingScot is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2022, 09:44 PM   #51
John Mercier
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 1,524
Thanks: 0
Thanked 298 Times in 248 Posts
Default

I don't think moving it to 250' or even 300' would make a bit of difference in sales. You could move all boats to 300' and it wouldn't make a difference in sales.

And if you put in a noise ordinance... either through direct legislation or court inflection, the industry would just morph into a means to provide the music more directly - sort of like waterproof headphones.

But in the end, the main issue with the lakes will always be the property values that they present. Protecting those property values will be front and center regardless of what secondary issues may arise.
John Mercier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2022, 11:32 PM   #52
mswlogo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 653
Thanks: 196
Thanked 222 Times in 143 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mercier View Post
I don't think moving it to 250' or even 300' would make a bit of difference in sales. You could move all boats to 300' and it wouldn't make a difference in sales.

And if you put in a noise ordinance... either through direct legislation or court inflection, the industry would just morph into a means to provide the music more directly - sort of like waterproof headphones.

But in the end, the main issue with the lakes will always be the property values that they present. Protecting those property values will be front and center regardless of what secondary issues may arise.
To be a little unbiased/balanced. It’s not just property values.
It’s businesses too. And those businesses do draw people to spend money in NH.
And increase demand for property.

The boat dealers argument was if you do this everyone would pack up and leave.
Which was of course BS.

Honestly the 250ft is practically a token and just a message that NH won’t just tolerate anything. It might move some boats out of marginal coves. But it’s such a small difference. I think 500ft would make a more serious dent and still not harm most of them much. It would hit a small hand full probably hard. On some very small bodies of water. They would need a 1000ft, almost a 1/4 mile, diameter circle around the boat and that wide path moving ahead.
mswlogo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2022, 12:19 AM   #53
John Mercier
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 1,524
Thanks: 0
Thanked 298 Times in 248 Posts
Default

Tourism is about 8% of NH's GSP according to the Division of Travel and Tourism. They estimate that between 75% and 85% of that on any given year is residents recreating. The Seacoast is the actual winner for summer revenue on that one.

Boating is cost and access. Pretty much like any other recreational format.
It is doubtful that diminishing a boats speed for an extra 100 feet, or even 500 feet, would change the demand pattern even enough to discover any data on it.

Now if we stated that no vessel shall sit at rest while manned unless docked... that might create an issue.
John Mercier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2022, 09:07 AM   #54
WinnisquamZ
Senior Member
 
WinnisquamZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,441
Thanks: 151
Thanked 470 Times in 314 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mercier View Post
Tourism is about 8% of NH's GSP according to the Division of Travel and Tourism. They estimate that between 75% and 85% of that on any given year is residents recreating. The Seacoast is the actual winner for summer revenue on that one.

Boating is cost and access. Pretty much like any other recreational format.
It is doubtful that diminishing a boats speed for an extra 100 feet, or even 500 feet, would change the demand pattern even enough to discover any data on it.

Now if we stated that no vessel shall sit at rest while manned unless docked... that might create an issue.
Curious, you believe the sea coast of NH brings in more revenue then the lakes region. How does one determine this number or is it just your opinion? Must say, I don’t see many million dollar condos being built at the seacoast we are having built here. Maybe in the past, but today, the lakes region is one of the hottest if not the hottest real estate markets in NE


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
WinnisquamZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2022, 09:21 AM   #55
WinnisquamZ
Senior Member
 
WinnisquamZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,441
Thanks: 151
Thanked 470 Times in 314 Posts
Default

And yes I apologize for changing topics. From politics to education the lakes region is allows placed behind the sea coast.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
WinnisquamZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2022, 10:59 AM   #56
codeman671
Senior Member
 
codeman671's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,975
Thanks: 158
Thanked 584 Times in 355 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WinnisquamZ View Post
Curious, you believe the sea coast of NH brings in more revenue then the lakes region. How does one determine this number or is it just your opinion? Must say, I don’t see many million dollar condos being built at the seacoast we are having built here. Maybe in the past, but today, the lakes region is one of the hottest if not the hottest real estate markets in NE


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
There are plenty. Have you been to downtown Portsmouth lately? Some are in the $2-4mil range! I live in Dover (at least for a few more months until we move permanently to Gilford) and real estate all over the seacoast is booming. Tons of people relocating to the seacoast, and summer is big down here. Personally I spend my summers in the lakes region.
codeman671 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2022, 11:35 AM   #57
LakeDad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 127
Thanks: 2
Thanked 34 Times in 27 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by codeman671 View Post
There are plenty. Have you been to downtown Portsmouth lately? Some are in the $2-4mil range! I live in Dover (at least for a few more months until we move permanently to Gilford) and real estate all over the seacoast is booming. Tons of people relocating to the seacoast, and summer is big down here. Personally I spend my summers in the lakes region.
“Plenty”, “some” and “tons” are not really measurements. I don’t know which area brings in more revenue, but there are ways to look this up.

My wife prefers the seacoast and I prefer the lake.
I won this time

Property tax tends to be one of my primary motivators when shopping homes: One could argue that property tax is one of the most immoral taxes: Who wants to pay a lifelong mortgage after you’ve already paid your property off? This got to be such a problem in CA, they capped it based on an annual % of the purchase price, regardless of appreciation.

Alton, Gilford, Wolfeboro and Moultonboro bring great value. Some of the sea coast has similar value, so both will remain popular for years to come.

When I look at Gilmanton, Bow and other places, I’d have a hard time justifying a purchase. A house the price of mine in Bow would have double the property tax.
LakeDad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2022, 12:18 PM   #58
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kuna ID
Posts: 2,754
Thanks: 245
Thanked 1,931 Times in 801 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WinnisquamZ View Post
Curious, you believe the sea coast of NH brings in more revenue then the lakes region. How does one determine this number or is it just your opinion? Must say, I don’t see many million dollar condos being built at the seacoast we are having built here. Maybe in the past, but today, the lakes region is one of the hottest if not the hottest real estate markets in NE


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
According to Realtor.com Manchester is the #1 RE market in the state, Concord comes in as #2.

Based on numbers from September 2021. This is based on both volume of sales along with average days on the market.

While areas like the seacoast and lakes region may have a high concentration of high dollar properties, that does not really create a fair measuring stick. What it does illustrate is real estate in these areas is in high demand and with limited options drives the higher-than-average prices. Then again this is happening everywhere.

It's all relative, every market is different.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2022, 12:19 PM   #59
codeman671
Senior Member
 
codeman671's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,975
Thanks: 158
Thanked 584 Times in 355 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LakeDad View Post
“Plenty”, “some” and “tons” are not really measurements. I don’t know which area brings in more revenue, but there are ways to look this up.
Since you don't like my generic terms, here is the NH quarterly activity posted by county for residential and condo sales.

https://www.nhar.org/assets/docs/NHAR_QDS_2021-Q4.pdf

I was speaking specifically to real estate, not which area brings in more revenue. I do think that a lot more people visit the seacoast than the lakes region, but that is my opinion. Just the sheer traffic alone down here is a nightmare. When people complain about lakes region traffic I have to chuckle.
codeman671 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2022, 12:32 PM   #60
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,947
Thanks: 244
Thanked 727 Times in 431 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WinnisquamZ View Post
Curious, you believe the sea coast of NH brings in more revenue then the lakes region. How does one determine this number or is it just your opinion? Must say, I don’t see many million dollar condos being built at the seacoast we are having built here. Maybe in the past, but today, the lakes region is one of the hottest if not the hottest real estate markets in NE


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
I have spent a lot of time in the lakes region and now live at Hampton Beach. I don't think million dollar+ condos bring in much tourism revenue anywhere since most are probably either occupied by owners (who are likely not eating out every day or hitting tourist traps, due to BTDT syndrome) or they are empty. I suspect that when you can afford a million dollar+ condo as a second home, there's not a lot of incentive to rent it out.

I can say with certainty that sub-$500k condo short-term rentals are absolutely booming here at Hampton Beach. We rent our one-bedroom beach condo out May to Oct on airbnb and it sells out easily. Many of our neighbors do the same. We are in process of buying a second one bedroom condo right now and plan to keep buying more when good deals land in our lap (we refuse to get into bidding wars).

I think it's safe to assume the tourism revenue from the people that are renting these small (600-850 square foot) beach condos is pretty huge because in addition to the beach, our customers tell us the big draw here is all the cool places to spend money at night. Tourists love all the live music and expensive food/drink venues that are clustered here.

The lakes region, IMO, is going in the opposite direction as the seacoast, tourism-wise. It's becoming more and more exclusive and other than Weirs Beach (which is tiny compared to Hampton Beach), there really aren't any high-density low-cost vacation destinations in the lakes region anymore.
Dave R is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dave R For This Useful Post:
codeman671 (02-16-2022), winterharbor59 (02-17-2022)
Old 02-16-2022, 12:39 PM   #61
lakewinnie
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough and CT
Posts: 49
Thanks: 21
Thanked 49 Times in 18 Posts
Default 250 foot setback - safety

Quote:
Originally Posted by mswlogo View Post
I didn’t see any arguments around noise.

Most arguments were discomfort to those within tidal wave range and it was only asking the range be increased to 250ft

All those against were arguing $$$, mostly folks that sell the boats with really weak arguments.
I contrast this issue with the speed limit issue back in 2008 (I think that was the year). In my view, the speed limit got traction and passed because of 1) the perceived issue of safety and 2) a tragic accident that claimed the life of a woman as a result of a boat operator that had been drinking.

I still think the other key argument that should be made against wakeboats is safety of other boats in the vicinity of the huge waves. I've said this before - in all of my experience on the lake, I have never had a safety issue with boats going > 45 mph, but have had some scary calls with wakeboat waves. If safety is really an issue, I think the wakeboats are by far more of an issue than boats going > 45 mph or the occasional cabin monster that is running in a straight line.

So I have a question on the proposed House Bill - is the 250 foot setback only applicable to the nearest land/shore, or would it also apply to other boats (i.e., would it supersede the 150 foot rule for the wakeboard boat)?
lakewinnie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2022, 03:35 PM   #62
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,696
Thanks: 622
Thanked 1,207 Times in 830 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave R View Post
I have spent a lot of time in the lakes region and now live at Hampton Beach. I don't think million dollar+ condos bring in much tourism revenue anywhere since most are probably either occupied by owners (who are likely not eating out every day or hitting tourist traps, due to BTDT syndrome) or they are empty. I suspect that when you can afford a million dollar+ condo as a second home, there's not a lot of incentive to rent it out.

I can say with certainty that sub-$500k condo short-term rentals are absolutely booming here at Hampton Beach. We rent our one-bedroom beach condo out May to Oct on airbnb and it sells out easily. Many of our neighbors do the same. We are in process of buying a second one bedroom condo right now and plan to keep buying more when good deals land in our lap (we refuse to get into bidding wars).

I think it's safe to assume the tourism revenue from the people that are renting these small (600-850 square foot) beach condos is pretty huge because in addition to the beach, our customers tell us the big draw here is all the cool places to spend money at night. Tourists love all the live music and expensive food/drink venues that are clustered here.

The lakes region, IMO, is going in the opposite direction as the seacoast, tourism-wise. It's becoming more and more exclusive and other than Weirs Beach (which is tiny compared to Hampton Beach), there really aren't any high-density low-cost vacation destinations in the lakes region anymore.
I think you make an excellent point. There used to be cabin colonies and motels and now there are hardly any. We are a second home area now. And although more people rent their private houses, it still does not even compare to what used to be available.
tis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2022, 05:24 PM   #63
TiltonBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gilford, NH and Florida
Posts: 2,512
Thanks: 493
Thanked 1,905 Times in 778 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mswlogo View Post
To be a little unbiased/balanced. It’s not just property values.
It’s businesses too. And those businesses do draw people to spend money in NH.
And increase demand for property.
The boat dealers argument was if you do this everyone would pack up and leave.
Which was of course BS.
.
Can you be sure that the wakeboats with the loud stereos do not decrease the demand for property? If a renter on the lake listens to 2 hours of bad music every day of their vacation, blasted across miles, with waves washing up on shore, will they rush to come back?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lakewinnie View Post
So I have a question on the proposed House Bill - is the 250 foot setback only applicable to the nearest land/shore, or would it also apply to other boats (i.e., would it supersede the 150 foot rule for the wakeboard boat)?
I don't know the answer to this but if it is also 250 feet from other boats then what happens when a regular boat with a 150 foot restriction gets within 250 feet of a wakeboat? Who is the violator?

I can't see how that could become an enforceable law.
TiltonBB is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to TiltonBB For This Useful Post:
lakewinnie (02-16-2022)
Old 02-16-2022, 06:30 PM   #64
lakewinnie
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough and CT
Posts: 49
Thanks: 21
Thanked 49 Times in 18 Posts
Default 250 feet setback

I should have looked this up before my previous post. The following language is in House Bill 1071:

"Any boat underway for wake surfing on inland waters shall maintain a minimum distance of 250 feet from the shore, docks, and other boats"

TiltonBB's question is a good one with regard to distance from other boats - how do you enforce it?
lakewinnie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2022, 07:41 PM   #65
John Mercier
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 1,524
Thanks: 0
Thanked 298 Times in 248 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WinnisquamZ View Post
Curious, you believe the sea coast of NH brings in more revenue then the lakes region. How does one determine this number or is it just your opinion? Must say, I don’t see many million dollar condos being built at the seacoast we are having built here. Maybe in the past, but today, the lakes region is one of the hottest if not the hottest real estate markets in NE


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
NH Division of Travel and Tourism.

Housing is not tourism.
John Mercier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2022, 07:47 PM   #66
John Mercier
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 1,524
Thanks: 0
Thanked 298 Times in 248 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltonBB View Post
Can you be sure that the wakeboats with the loud stereos do not decrease the demand for property? If a renter on the lake listens to 2 hours of bad music every day of their vacation, blasted across miles, with waves washing up on shore, will they rush to come back?

I don't know the answer to this but if it is also 250 feet from other boats then what happens when a regular boat with a 150 foot restriction gets within 250 feet of a wakeboat? Who is the violator?

I can't see how that could become an enforceable law.
The Wake boat impede 100 feet before changing direction to navigate away from the known violation.
John Mercier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2022, 07:51 PM   #67
TiltonBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gilford, NH and Florida
Posts: 2,512
Thanks: 493
Thanked 1,905 Times in 778 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mercier View Post
The Wake boat impede 100 feet before changing direction to navigate away from the known violation.
You seem to be an expert on most things so please explain this.
TiltonBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2022, 07:55 PM   #68
John Mercier
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 1,524
Thanks: 0
Thanked 298 Times in 248 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LakeDad View Post
“Plenty”, “some” and “tons” are not really measurements. I don’t know which area brings in more revenue, but there are ways to look this up.

My wife prefers the seacoast and I prefer the lake.
I won this time

Property tax tends to be one of my primary motivators when shopping homes: One could argue that property tax is one of the most immoral taxes: Who wants to pay a lifelong mortgage after you’ve already paid your property off? This got to be such a problem in CA, they capped it based on an annual % of the purchase price, regardless of appreciation.

Alton, Gilford, Wolfeboro and Moultonboro bring great value. Some of the sea coast has similar value, so both will remain popular for years to come.

When I look at Gilmanton, Bow and other places, I’d have a hard time justifying a purchase. A house the price of mine in Bow would have double the property tax.
NH Travel and Tourism has data on where the Meals & Rental taxes are coming from by specific address, but generally correlates by zip code.

We use property taxes... which we have since the founding of the State (and used to pay all State level revenue as property taxes including on livestock and equipment) because property is much more stable, and moreover, the property tax generally goes towards items that improve the value of the property.
John Mercier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2022, 09:40 AM   #69
LakeDad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 127
Thanks: 2
Thanked 34 Times in 27 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mercier View Post
NH Travel and Tourism has data on where the Meals & Rental taxes are coming from by specific address, but generally correlates by zip code.

We use property taxes... which we have since the founding of the State (and used to pay all State level revenue as property taxes including on livestock and equipment) because property is much more stable, and moreover, the property tax generally goes towards items that improve the value of the property.

Using them doesn’t make them any less immoral of a tax. One should be able to buy a home, pay it off and sit. If tax revenue is absolutely required, gather it at spending points. This prevents the retired (fixed, often low, income) from being disproportionately injured financially year after year.

People who have had a paid off house for 20 years, only to be displaced by unaffordable taxes is ****ing immoral.
LakeDad is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to LakeDad For This Useful Post:
mswlogo (02-18-2022), tummyman (02-17-2022)
Old 02-17-2022, 12:14 PM   #70
dippasan
Senior Member
 
dippasan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Hooksett NH and Sleepers Isl
Posts: 356
Thanks: 255
Thanked 155 Times in 69 Posts
Default Wake boat no longer needed

No need for a $150,000 wake boat to tow you if you have one of these.
Minimal wake, minimal shoreline impact, battery powered

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_PhLgPtfcg
__________________
Luck is when preparedness meets opportunity
dippasan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2022, 12:27 PM   #71
FlyingScot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 1,889
Thanks: 960
Thanked 811 Times in 495 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LakeDad View Post
Using them doesn’t make them any less immoral of a tax. One should be able to buy a home, pay it off and sit. If tax revenue is absolutely required, gather it at spending points. This prevents the retired (fixed, often low, income) from being disproportionately injured financially year after year.

People who have had a paid off house for 20 years, only to be displaced by unaffordable taxes is ****ing immoral.
Gathering revenue at spending points is an excellent idea...as long as you don't need roads plowed/repaired, or need to call the police, or the fire department, or believe in public education...

I agree that nobody should be taxed out of their (primary) residence. Many towns have tax relief programs that enable cash-strapped older people to put off paying property taxes until their home is sold. Since everybody's seen huge run ups in real estate value over the 20 years you cite, that should work for all towns
FlyingScot is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2022, 12:37 PM   #72
Woodsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,855
Thanks: 69
Thanked 891 Times in 395 Posts
Default

Its not just elderly... pretty much any family with lakefront property will be priced/taxed out eventually! They are not making anymore lakefront, and its a high demand commodity. We see this now in almost all aspects of lake life... I know of 1 marina getting close to $7700 for valet & winter storage!

Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.
Woodsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2022, 07:30 PM   #73
John Mercier
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 1,524
Thanks: 0
Thanked 298 Times in 248 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltonBB View Post
You seem to be an expert on most things so please explain this.
If the law is enacted and you are operating a wake boat... you must either adjust course to maintain the 250 feet or cut your throttle. This is regardless of whatever anyone else does.
If I am operating a boat, not a wake boat, and approach you directly... as we encroach on the 250 foot mark... you must act. I need not change anything in direction or throttle until I reach 150 feet from you.

If we both reach 150 feet without a change in course or cutting the throttle, you have impeded 100 feet into your legally required safe zone... broke the law... and are subject to fine. I will not have done anything illegal until I break the 150 foot safety zone required of me.
John Mercier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2022, 07:36 PM   #74
John Mercier
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 1,524
Thanks: 0
Thanked 298 Times in 248 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LakeDad View Post
Using them doesn’t make them any less immoral of a tax. One should be able to buy a home, pay it off and sit. If tax revenue is absolutely required, gather it at spending points. This prevents the retired (fixed, often low, income) from being disproportionately injured financially year after year.

People who have had a paid off house for 20 years, only to be displaced by unaffordable taxes is ****ing immoral.
What spending points?
And they are protected under NH RSA 72:38-a
John Mercier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2022, 09:52 PM   #75
chachee52
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Tyngsboro, MA and Gilford, NH
Posts: 285
Thanks: 4
Thanked 58 Times in 45 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mercier View Post
If the law is enacted and you are operating a wake boat... you must either adjust course to maintain the 250 feet or cut your throttle. This is regardless of whatever anyone else does.
If I am operating a boat, not a wake boat, and approach you directly... as we encroach on the 250 foot mark... you must act. I need not change anything in direction or throttle until I reach 150 feet from you.

If we both reach 150 feet without a change in course or cutting the throttle, you have impeded 100 feet into your legally required safe zone... broke the law... and are subject to fine. I will not have done anything illegal until I break the 150 foot safety zone required of me.
Is this true? I have always been under the impression that if a boat is towing a skier than I have to (maybe its just should) heed to them if they are on a straight path within reason. If they are tubing zig-zagging around than right of way should win. Maybe I've just been too nice out on the water. I have been swamped by throttling down when approaching another boat within 150' only for them to fly past me within 20 ft.
Also I know that the surfboarding community already used the "they aren't towing anyone" thing for the surfing at night and that NH did change the wording of that rule to include wake surfing. so I am including them in the towing community still.
chachee52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2022, 01:48 AM   #76
John Mercier
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 1,524
Thanks: 0
Thanked 298 Times in 248 Posts
Default

The boat flying past you at 20 feet would be violating the current law. When new law is enacted, all previous legislation is considered amended.

As it currently stands, the wake boat could pass within 150 feet of a non-motorized craft like a kayak, canoe, or paddle board and swamp them... but still be legal in their operation.

But the question was how it could be enforced? Not whether it was prudent based on any existing precedent.

Operators tend to heed ROW under logical terms... the legal requirement is NH RSA 270-D:2
It does not provide a special provision for towing except ''Starting skiers from shore, docks or floats, as long as neither the boat nor the skier is endangering the life or safety of any person.''; which is the provision that keeps boats at least 150 feet from others and shore.
John Mercier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2022, 10:52 AM   #77
Alton Bay
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alton Bay
Posts: 187
Thanks: 73
Thanked 24 Times in 21 Posts
Default

It seems this law covers a large amount of the responsibility of any boat driver or boat

270-D:2
VI. (a) To provide full visibility and control and to prevent their wake from being thrown into or causing excessive rocking to other boats, barges, water skiers, aquaplanes or other boats, rafts or floats, all vessels shall maintain headway speed when within 150 feet from:
(1) Rafts, floats, swimmers.
(2) Permitted swimming areas.
(3) Shore.
(4) Docks.
(5) Mooring fields.
(6) Other vessels.
Alton Bay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2022, 09:47 PM   #78
John Mercier
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 1,524
Thanks: 0
Thanked 298 Times in 248 Posts
Default

As long as they stay 150 feet away... but it does not remove responsibility from the towing vessel to also try to maintain the 150 feet.
The earlier part of it lays out the ROW that every boat is to act upon... nothing specifically exempts a boat in tow from acting outside that.
John Mercier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2022, 08:44 AM   #79
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,696
Thanks: 622
Thanked 1,207 Times in 830 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alton Bay View Post
It seems this law covers a large amount of the responsibility of any boat driver or boat

270-D:2
VI. (a) To provide full visibility and control and to prevent their wake from being thrown into or causing excessive rocking to other boats, barges, water skiers, aquaplanes or other boats, rafts or floats, all vessels shall maintain headway speed when within 150 feet from:
(1) Rafts, floats, swimmers.
(2) Permitted swimming areas.
(3) Shore.
(4) Docks.
(5) Mooring fields.
(6) Other vessels.
It would be nice if this rule was followed.
tis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2022, 08:14 PM   #80
tummyman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 647
Thanks: 159
Thanked 538 Times in 181 Posts
Default Committee Hearing 2/23/2022

Tried to listen to today's vote by committee in NH House. It appears they voted 11-10 to deem the bill Inexpediate to Legislate. In my opinion, I think this means the committee did not recommend implementing the 250 foot distance to the full House and would appear to be a win for the boating industry. Not sure if there are any other steps...
tummyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2022, 09:01 PM   #81
John Mercier
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 1,524
Thanks: 0
Thanked 298 Times in 248 Posts
Default

There is.
When it goes to the full House, someone can remove it from the CC and have it voted on individually. I have had bills come from committee with unanimous support, removed from the CC and killed on the House floor.
John Mercier is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to John Mercier For This Useful Post:
tummyman (02-23-2022)
Old 02-24-2022, 09:23 AM   #82
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,696
Thanks: 622
Thanked 1,207 Times in 830 Posts
Default

From my experience in Concord it is all about the lobbyists. Sadly many of the legislators depend on them when making their decisions.
tis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2022, 07:45 PM   #83
John Mercier
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 1,524
Thanks: 0
Thanked 298 Times in 248 Posts
Default

Not always.
A decent argument can change opinions.

The NHOHVA lobbyist felt that I would leave the House Transportation Committee with an ITL. I think everyone was a bit stunned when it was unanimous OTP.

A Democrat majority/Republic minority facing lobbyist were able to find common ground on the arguments we made in support of that bill.
John Mercier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2022, 10:05 PM   #84
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,071
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 263
Thanked 885 Times in 639 Posts
Default

'Vermont considers regulations limiting wake boats' ..... article in today's June 30 Burlington Free Press that you can probably see without a paid subscription.

Is an interesting read. it seems likely that some of these rules could actually get approved in Vermont but never, never, never get approved in New Hampshire by the Republican majority in the NH legislature who each receive something like a $250-annual political donation from the NH Marine Trades Assoc.

Here's a working link .... http://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/v...090626615.html
__________________
.... age-70 & suffering terrible chronic tinnitus ... omg!

Last edited by fatlazyless; 06-30-2022 at 11:32 PM.
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2022, 09:11 AM   #85
LIforrelaxin
Senior Member
 
LIforrelaxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island, not that one, the one on Winnipesaukee
Posts: 2,597
Thanks: 901
Thanked 802 Times in 455 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
'Vermont considers regulations limiting wake boats' ..... article in today's June 30 Burlington Free Press that you can probably see without a paid subscription.

Is an interesting read. it seems likely that some of these rules could actually get approved in Vermont but never, never, never get approved in New Hampshire by the Republican majority in the NH legislature who each receive something like a $250-annual political donation from the NH Marine Trades Assoc.

Here's a working link .... http://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/v...090626615.html
Many states, are trying to understand how to deal with this issue. Not just Vermont and New Hampshire... At the end of the day it comes down to responsibility, for the environment. I have no issues with Wakeboats, as long as they stay out from shore, and at least around me, they do....
__________________
Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island.....
LIforrelaxin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2022, 10:25 AM   #86
Descant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Merrimack and Welch Island
Posts: 3,433
Thanks: 999
Thanked 1,298 Times in 829 Posts
Default

Re: donations from the Marine Trades Association.
FLL, what is the source of the $250 donations yo cite?
I have good friends who serve on the Transportation Committee and the Resources Committee in the NH House. Never heard of any such donations which would have to be reported under either House ethics rules or campaign reporting rules. The Senate would have similar rules.
Descant is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Descant For This Useful Post:
Wolfe-man (07-06-2022)
Old 07-01-2022, 12:07 PM   #87
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,071
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 263
Thanked 885 Times in 639 Posts
Default

NH Marine Trades Assoc is a political action committee, since about 1971, mailing address; 65 Gold St, Laconia NH 03246, same address as Lakeport Landing Marina, and has a website ...... www.boatingnh.com

On wake surfing, Marine Trades has this link ...... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daa0U56zvwc ..... which supposedly shows how wake boat waves will dissipate and lose their power before the wave hits the shoreline.

I recall an article in the LaDaSun where the president of Marine Trades said it distributes political contributions of about $200-300 to NH state reps and senators who they believe will support their Marine Trades initiatives and objectives. The money is typically used to pay for their political campaign signs that pop up, all over, at election time.

Nov 9, 2020: Laconia Daily Sun; 'Gilford man elected VP of NH Marine Trades Assoc.'
__________________
.... age-70 & suffering terrible chronic tinnitus ... omg!
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2022, 01:12 PM   #88
FlyingScot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 1,889
Thanks: 960
Thanked 811 Times in 495 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Descant View Post
Re: donations from the Marine Trades Association.
FLL, what is the source of the $250 donations yo cite?
I have good friends who serve on the Transportation Committee and the Resources Committee in the NH House. Never heard of any such donations which would have to be reported under either House ethics rules or campaign reporting rules. The Senate would have similar rules.
On a related issue--the committee set up by the legislature to evaluate wake boats was more than 50% composed of people who were explicitly wake boat supporters and/or depended on the marine trades for their livelihood. The legislature stacked the deck against action.
FlyingScot is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to FlyingScot For This Useful Post:
TiltonBB (07-01-2022)
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 0.43464 seconds