The Mount

[B R]

I heard the Mount was out all weekend. How does everyone feel about that? I can see how boaters who hadn't heard about the no wake rule or thought it was just a rumor would react when the Mount is making its normal rounds with its normal (LARGE) wake. I was surprised to hear they ran all weekend. How can you expect people to slow down with that boat cruising as usual? The Mount travels just under 20 mph (i think). Did it slow down to no wake at 600 feet? I don't see how it could have.

[Dave R]

I find the wakes generated by the mail boats and some big cruisers, like 30+ foot Carvers for instance, to be vastly bigger than what the Mount makes at normal cruising speed. I would also guess that the Mount has been cruising the lake for more years than 99% of the current lakefront property owners have owned their property. If you count the original Mount, the number jumps to 100%. There has been ample time to prepare for big wakes... I'm glad it was out (if indeed it was).

[Phantom]

The Mount appeared to operate only on the week-end -- and from my views of her sailing she seemed to be at reduced speed. The Doris & Sophie were also out and about and again, seemed to be at reduced speeds...... however, as noted above -- I too feel the Doris & Sophie throw a much larger wake than the Mount and from first hand experiance I can tell you the two smaller ships were certainly NOT at no wake speed -- which I too found a little hypocritical. I cannot address what they did within 600' as I did not see any of them in that situation first hand

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I find the wakes generated by the mail boats and some big cruisers, like 30+ foot Carvers for instance, to be vastly bigger than what the Mount makes at normal cruising speed. I would also guess that the Mount has been cruising the lake for more years than 99% of the current lakefront property owners have owned their property. If you count the original Mount, the number jumps to 100%. There has been ample time to prepare for big wakes... I'm glad it was out (if indeed it was).

Ok Dave, I'll bite, how do you "prepare for big wakes"? Four foot retaining wall along the whole shore line? Sand Bags? Berm? Large rock jetties? Flood control walls? Please tell me.

[jrc]

There is nothing on their website, to indicate the Mount is not running a regular daily schedule. I saw her on Saturday and Sunday this weekend. I was not equipped to judge her speed, but she was making a wake in right next to FL 1. I also saw Sophie making a wake near Jolly on Saturday.

From a boat, the Mount's wake is much easier to take than the Sophie or Doris, or even a big flat bottomed Carver. The Mount is more a swell than a breaking wave. The wake isn't any smaller just smoother.

[cowisl]

The mount's wake is suprisingly small.

[HotDog]

the mount wasn't going any slower then it normally does, we were going through the new no wake zone by govs. island and the mount did not slow down at all, we had to fly out of there so we didn't get hit!!

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by ITD

Ok Dave, I'll bite, how do you "prepare for big wakes"? Four foot retaining wall along the whole shore line? Sand Bags? Berm? Large rock jetties? Flood control walls? Please tell me.

If that's what it takes, yeah. The fact is, erosion is never ever going to stop. You can either live with it or slow it down to a manageable level. It may take a lot of money or hard work or both. Some lots are naturally more resistant to erosion, but they likely lack nice beaches. Some nice level lots are perfect for beaches, but you need to expect them to change over time, if left alone. I see all kinds of walls, dams, jetties and such on the shore where erosion would obviously be a problem otherwise; somebody had to build them, and it wasn't free.

[Yankee]

Originally Posted by cowisl

The mount's wake is suprisingly small.

Yes, it does. That's because the Mount has a displacement hull, and moves through the water, not over it (planing hull) like most recreational boats.

[Silver Duck]

Interesting; like HotDog, I, too, had to scoot out of the new Governor's Island NWZ faster than I wanted to in order to get out of the Mount's way.

Is it possible that she can't maintain proper steerage way at the speed a smaller (30 ft) boat normally slows down to in a NWZ? It's hard to believe that her skiper would operate in an unsafe manner!

Anyway, from now on, if I see her coming up behind me at that location I'm going to scoot off to the side and let her go by!

Silver Duck

[jrc]

Displacement boats make a big wake just like planing boats. The water has to move somewhere. Look at any picture of a moving ship and the wake is clear. Displacement wakes are just smoother, without the breaking waves.

As to her speed, in NH at least:

Saf-C 401.18 "No wake area" means an area where all boats are required to operate at headway speed

further:

Saf-C 401.08 "Headway speed" means 6 miles per hour or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way.

If the Mount's skipper cannot maintain steerage and control of his vessel at 6 mph, he can go faster.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Dave R

If that's what it takes, yeah. The fact is, erosion is never ever going to stop. You can either live with it or slow it down to a manageable level. It may take a lot of money or hard work or both. Some lots are naturally more resistant to erosion, but they likely lack nice beaches. Some nice level lots are perfect for beaches, but you need to expect them to change over time, if left alone. I see all kinds of walls, dams, jetties and such on the shore where erosion would obviously be a problem otherwise; somebody had to build them, and it wasn't free.

Sorry Dave, building walls, jetties and such for a rare flood just doesn't seem reasonable nor would the DES agree. What is more reasonable would be a lakewide NWZ after the lake reaches a certain point over full lake. I find it interesting at the number of people who harp on shorefront owners, blaming them for the decrease in water quality, yet, when it is their turn to help prevent silting up the lake by running at no wake they refuse to do so. That said, I think most boaters did get it and either left their boats at home or travelled at headway speed. All except one of the large cruisers and GFBL boats I saw were travelling at headway speed. All in all boat traffic was way down for a Memorial day weekend. So to those of you who stayed at no wake speeds or stayed off your boat, thank you. To those of you who didn't, well I hope you enjoyed yourselves.

[CEP]

I have noticed a few years ago the Mount would reduce her speed when traveling in the narrow areas, (ie) Eagle and Govenors Island, heading north making the turn at Horse Island and Big and Little One Mile Narrows.
Then they changed all that and now they don't reduce speed in any of those areas. I think it might have to do with the time schedule they must make.
Go faster, pick up more passengers, more money, bigger profit!
I would think the Mount, Sophie and Dorris would reduce their speed, due to the lake conditions. However, everyone has a boss and they might have been told to maintain normal schedule speed.
When the Mount use to reduce her speed, she still had steering control.
Another thing I just thought of, maybe reducing her speed and bringing her back up to standard speed takes more fuel and that would cost more!
Anyway, I do hope someone who works for the Winn. Flagship Corp. will answer some of the members question.
It seems a few are wondering why?

CEP

[ApS]

Originally Posted by jrc

"...Displacement boats make a big wake just like planing boats..."

Just for the record, displacement boats include canoes, kayaks, rowboats, and most sailboats; however, nearly anything (see photo below) with enough power -- like a deep-Vee -- can be made to plane.

Originally Posted by Dave R

If that's what it takes, yeah. The fact is, erosion is never ever going to stop. You can either live with it or slow it down to a manageable level. It may take a lot of money or hard work or both....Some nice level lots are perfect for beaches, but you need to expect them to change over time, if left alone. I see all kinds of walls, dams, jetties and such on the shore where erosion would obviously be a problem otherwise; somebody had to build them, and it wasn't free.

Building walls isn't recommended, according to Wikipedia:

"...Seawalls are effective defenses in the short term, but may cause erosion in the long run..."

At my winter lakefront property, the Florida DES-equivalent doesn't allow walls around lakes. The velocity of runoff on abutting properties chews away at the abutter's properties. The sand directly in front of the wall is washed deeper into the lake: A lose-lose proposition.

Here, the beach I had gained in a previous rainstorm (July 6th, 1999, 4:28PM) has long since disappeared. This April, developers dumped huge amounts of "fill" uphill, and "sand" next door on a new houselot. When the rains stopped, I again got "a beach", albeit with a fine coating of Memorial Day mud.

That "new" sandy beach won't stay either.

Originally Posted by Dave R

"...Some lots are naturally more resistant to erosion, but they likely lack nice beaches..."

While I'd like to have a permanent beach, beaches are not the end-game of Mother Nature.

Having been left in forest, my acre lot still sheds mud into the lake. Mud (actually natural soil created by Nature's "duff"—mixed with sediment) gets gradually washed downhill to the water's edge, where it waits to be washed into the lake.

The shifting of shorefront rocks due to erosion [natural and artificial] causes trees and supporting rocks to shift taking still more more mud (soil/silt) with it, and more rocks to shift into place. While the process has been ongoing since the glaciers left, our generation has never seen the wakes that are mashing the shoreline today. At those times that the lake assumes its present extreme level (even by millennia standards), big wakes do immense damage.

The enduring beaches are those that Mother Nature put there. Velocity of runoff will increase silt levels, decrease underwater visibility levels, and create favorable milfoil habitat. The 600' limitation of wakes is a ridiculous measure. I mean, why aren't the wakes "listening"?

The communities that surround the Mount's route are mostly equipped with DES-approved breakwaters anyway. Everyone else off the beaten track are getting soaked—with dock repair costs—or by the monster wakes which loosen pilings and rock cribs, just waiting for winter's mischief to finish them off.

OTOH, New Hampshire's "shortsightedness" (for lack of a less cynical term) doesn't have to pay for waterfront damage—insurance does!

With the State's reliance on tourists for state income, this will mean more commercial structures, more pavement, more parking spaces, and increased runoff velocity into Lake Winnipesaukee.

New Hampshire, with its "urged" limits and myopic 600-foot "wake limit", isn't eating its seed corn, it's selling it.

[Winni]

Nicely put, ITD and Acres per Second. Good to get that info. out there about the walls. They seem to be the "thing" to do in our neighborhood and I have seen our un-walled shoreline increasingly fall apart since one was installed next door about 10 years ago. So, I can testify, albeit subjectively, to the results.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by ITD

Sorry Dave, building walls, jetties and such for a rare flood just doesn't seem reasonable nor would the DES agree. What is more reasonable would be a lakewide NWZ after the lake reaches a certain point over full lake. I find it interesting at the number of people who harp on shorefront owners, blaming them for the decrease in water quality, yet, when it is their turn to help prevent silting up the lake by running at no wake they refuse to do so. That said, I think most boaters did get it and either left their boats at home or travelled at headway speed. All except one of the large cruisers and GFBL boats I saw were travelling at headway speed. All in all boat traffic was way down for a Memorial day weekend. So to those of you who stayed at no wake speeds or stayed off your boat, thank you. To those of you who didn't, well I hope you enjoyed yourselves.

Sandbags would have helped, right? They are temporary and the DES probably has better things to do than pick on someone for placing sandbags on shore during a flood. If not, they need a dope slap.

I agree about the lake wide NWZ. But it did not happen. Just being realistic.

[Eki]

we live on the water front.

This spring we have watched all the wave action.

There has been more wave action due to nature than boats.

The Mount goes by our place twice a day... The wake from the mount is nothing compared to the relentless waves caused by the winds this spring.

I wish people would get off the NWZ high horse and just get down to the business of cleaning things up. Tired of hearing people whine.

[Weirs guy]

Thats funny Eki, last fall I would have agreed with you. But having seen my beach first hand being swamped by boats ingoring the 600' rule all week, including capt. bonehead running laps last night, I couldn't disagree with you more. I'm directly behind the Mounts wake when she leaves the Weirs, as well as in a pretty good spot to get the wind wave action as well, and neither compare to the private boats. I'll get off my high horse when my beach is dry and I can enjoy it as much as the boaters are enjoying ruining it.

[Gatto Nero]

Nicely said Eki. The worst damage I have seen through all of this was Monday, May 22 when there wasn't a boat out there but the wind kept 2 foot waves coming in and bashing my dock and shoreline all day long. Not much anyone can do about that.

The Mount goes by our place as well but the wake is negligible and did no harm this weekend.

As for the 600 foot NWZ, it seemed to me that most boaters complied but it didn't matter one way or the other. The one exception was Captain Bonehead in a 30 foot cruiser who, I'm sure, thought he was complying by plowing through the water at about 15 knots maybe 250 feet out. In his case the rule probably did more harm than good. We had to run for cover when his wake hit the shores but if he had been on plane we probably wouldn't have noticed him or his wake.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Weirs guy

Thats funny Eki, last fall I would have agreed with you. But having seen my beach first hand being swamped by boats ingoring the 600' rule all week, including capt. bonehead running laps last night, I couldn't disagree with you more. I'm directly behind the Mounts wake when she leaves the Weirs, as well as in a pretty good spot to get the wind wave action as well, and neither compare to the private boats. I'll get off my high horse when my beach is dry and I can enjoy it as much as the boaters are enjoying ruining it.

It's obvious by the different damage descriptions that location is everything. I'd bet a 1320 foot NWZ rule would have made a huge difference because not many bays/coves are more than 1/2 mile wide and the folks that live on the broads are already well prepared for waves, or at least get them regardless of boat traffic.