[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by birchhaven

It actually reaches a little father than you might think. It has been amended a few times throughout the decades to involve more.

I actually came across this in my research and kind found it funny how it actually calls out NH as an exception:

§4301. Application
(a) This chapter applies to a recreational vessel and associated equipment carried in the vessel on waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (including the territorial sea of the United States as described in Presidential Proclamation No. 5928 of December 27, 1988) and, for a vessel owned in the United States, on the high seas.

(b) Except when expressly otherwise provided, this chapter does not apply to a foreign vessel temporarily operating on waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

(c) Until there is a final judicial decision that they are navigable waters of the United States, the following waters lying entirely in New Hampshire are declared not to be waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of this section: Lake Winnisquam, Lake Winnipesaukee, parts of the Merrimack River, and their tributary and connecting waters.

(Pub. L. 98–89, Aug. 26, 1983, 97 Stat. 529; Pub. L. 105–383, title III, §301(b)(4), Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3417.)

The Jones Act is best known for the reason articulated by Descant in his post above. This part of the statute relating to goods transported between U.S. ports dates to 1920, and as I mentioned would have little (if any) meaningful impact on Lake Winnipesaukee. The section you quote here is part of a chapter pertaining to recreational vessels, and appears to have been added to the statute no earlier than 1983, perhaps as a result of the work done by the New Hampshire federal congressional delegation and state executive branch in response to the meddling by the Coast Guard, as pointed out in the NYT article.