Meredith NWZ Petition / Hearing

[HellRaZoR004]

I stumbled upon the following petition this morning and thought the greater community should be aware as it has a significant impact on the NWZ in Meredith. I would like to add that the NWZ currently in place is big, this only makes it bigger!

Petition:
https://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/...e-petition.pdf

Hearing:
https://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/...ay-hearing.pdf

The public hearing is September 30, 2016 at 5:00 pm, Meredith Community Center, Room B, 1 Circle Drive, Meredith

Current NWZ:


Proposed Based on Tax Map:

[HellRaZoR004]

I would also point out there appears to be a discrepancy between Tax Map U15, Lot 45B and the wording indicating 65 Pleasant Street, Meredith, NH 03253

Tax Map U15:
http://www.meredithnh.org/Joomla/pdf...axmaps/U15.PDF

Tax Map U02:
http://www.meredithnh.org/Joomla/pdf...axmaps/U02.PDF

[AC2717]

that is absurd, the current one is about 1000 feet two long, no need for it other than biz and Money on the area have an agenda for themselves

[Hillcountry]

I'm not usually in favor of tighter restrictions and have no dog in this hunt except that I valet out of Meredith Marina.
I have been on that gas dock and operating in the zone and witnessed boats that come into the NWZ at speed, only to shut down after the buoy is passed and also boats inside the zone that seemingly, ignore or have no clue what "no wake" means.
This happens all over the lake, however, not just in Meredith.
I believe this is an enforcement problem as in my short time on the lake, there is never any law enforcement in sight where these issues are most, prevalent.
Residents and businesses that have to endure the aftermath of ignorance of the speed laws, will eventually take action.
We'll see how this pans out I guess...

[joey2665]

Might as well make the whole bay a NWZ. Anchor Marie and Akwa Marina could make the very same case. The marina and club has existed all this time and boat traffic on the lake as many have stated on this site is NOT at its peak. This would set and extremely bad president.

[MeredithMan]

Sorry, but I don't see the big deal on this one. If you draw the imaginary line from the last "No Wake" buoy over near Church Landing, across in front of Meredith Marina to Bayshore Road, that is an area that is pretty tight and fairly close to shore anyway. There are always lots of paddleboarders and kayakers in there, as well as boaters going slow anyway to approach Meredith Marina gas dock and rental slips. You also have the folks that have rented boats from MM, many of whom could be novice, less-skilled boaters, who could use the "calm" waters before heading out.

I'm not one for more regulation, and I love the thrill of hitting the gas on my Formula, but I don't see making that tight section over in the corner an extension of the NWZ as a huge issue. It is not a section of lake that lends itself to higher speed boating anyway. Just one dude's opinion...

[ishoot308]

I will say the gas dock issue at Meredith Marina noted in the petition is quite true. I never stop there for gas on any busy day unless absolutely necessary as you do get pounded by boat waves. Same holds true for Shep Browns...

Dan

[Woodsy]

I call BS! This problem can be better solved by enforcing the existing NWZ.

Woodsy

[meredith weekender]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I call BS! This problem can be better solved by enforcing the existing NWZ.

Woodsy

Woodsy, You are spot on with your solution of enforcing what is there for NWZ. We are on the west side of the bay and see the violations of the NWZ every weekend. The sad part is that more than 75% of the violators are coming in /out of the Marina, Yacht Club or Gas Docks. If the MP would put a couple more buoys between the western shore and the current buoys this line would be better to see.

[tis]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I call BS! This problem can be better solved by enforcing the existing NWZ.

Woodsy

But Woodsy, people will have to learn that no wake means no wake, not 6 MPH.

[depasseg]

Originally Posted by tis

But Woodsy, people will have to learn that no wake means no wake, not 6 MPH.

Where is that defined? I've only ever seen No Wake Area defined in NH law as headway speed and headway speed defined as 6mph or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way. But unfortunately, that doesn't say if it's the lesser or the greater of the two. But in either case, "not leaving a wake" isn't part of the definition.

[Loub52]

Originally Posted by depasseg

Where is that defined? I've only ever seen No Wake Area defined in NH law as headway speed and headway speed defined as 6mph or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way. But unfortunately, that doesn't say if it's the lesser or the greater of the two. But in either case, "not leaving a wake" isn't part of the definition.

Your post is true, though to avoid scrutiny, its been my experience to have relatively flat water at your stern in no wake zones.

[Woodsy]

depasseg....

I am pretty sure Tis was referencing my many posts on the subject of Headway Speed / No wake. Every summer here it becomes a hot topic. I am a big fan of rewriting the definition.

The issue they are having in Meredith really isn't about headway speed /NWZ but more of the water disturbance caused by the boats coming on/off plane at the entrance/exit of the NWZ.

Woodsy

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I call BS! This problem can be better solved by enforcing the existing NWZ.

Woodsy

Why do something like that when it is much easier to create a new rule to make it look like you did something?

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by ITD

Why do something like that when it is much easier to create a new rule to make it look like you did something?

Well the idea is to make you feel better. Do you?

[ITD]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Well the idea is to make you feel better. Do you?

I feel something, but it's not better, at least to me.

[meredith weekender]

Originally Posted by AC2717

that is absurd, the current one is about 1000 feet two long, no need for it other than biz and Money on the area have an agenda for themselves

You are absolutely correct that changing the current NWZ is absurd. Boaters will need to be present at the hearing on September 30th to voice concerns against this proposal.

[Woodsy]

I think the issue here is monster of their own creation... the existing NWZ is so long that people wait until the last minute to slow down when entering and speed up as soon as possible when exiting. This is causing some big waves right at the NWZ line. Adding on a few hundred feet of NWZ just moves the problem a few hundred feet more up Meredith Bay. Then those folks further up will start to squawk!

A few more buoys down the existing NWZ line and some better enforcement is all that is needed. Or shorten the existing NWZ.

Woodsy

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I think the issue here is monster of their own creation... the existing NWZ is so long that people wait until the last minute to slow down when entering and speed up as soon as possible when exiting. This is causing some big waves right at the NWZ line. Adding on a few hundred feet of NWZ just moves the problem a few hundred feet more up Meredith Bay. Then those folks further up will start to squawk!

A few more buoys down the existing NWZ line and some better enforcement is all that is needed. Or shorten the existing NWZ.

Woodsy

I agree 100%

Dan

[Rich]

If the MP let people know that they will enforce this NWZ, then people will become wary of it and will respect it.

It's sort of like some of the small towns in my area. One town is very TOUGH with speeders and their roads are driven almost always at or under the posted speed limit, but this took a lot of tickets, and the resulting word of mouth over a few years. They have a reputation of being tough, and they continue to be someone tough, with warnings or tickets.

Other small towns aren't as rigorous in enforcing the posted speed limits and people tend to drive essentially the same road (just a couple of miles down) at what the road will support (which often a bit over the posted speed limit).

IMHO, if the MP enforced the current area, and it had a reputation of such, the word will get out and it will be an improved situation for everyone. Perhaps even people will slow down well before the NWZ.

But just changing the NWZ out a further distance doesn't solve anything if it's not enforced.

But it's too late for this now, as a hearing is already scheduled, and most would prefer to talk about it, rather than show up at the meeting to voice their concerns or opposition to this.

This is not a new NWZ, and as such, I don't have a strong feeling in one way or the other, but in general, as a boater, I prefer fewer NWZs and NRZs than more.

In this case, all those in this area are aware of the issues when they purchased (or rented/leased) their slip, as they have been like this for years. It's almost like someone buying a home next to an airport or gun club and then complaining about the noise. The lake has been much busier in the past, it's just that we've had a lull in most recent times.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I think the issue here is monster of their own creation... the existing NWZ is so long that people wait until the last minute to slow down when entering and speed up as soon as possible when exiting. This is causing some big waves right at the NWZ line. Adding on a few hundred feet of NWZ just moves the problem a few hundred feet more up Meredith Bay. Then those folks further up will start to squawk! A few more buoys down the existing NWZ line and some better enforcement is all that is needed. Or shorten the existing NWZ.

Woodsy

That "monster" is actually the growing number of "over-sized" boats. You may recall that ten years ago, I called for a doubling in registration fees—and doubling them again—for boats over 24-feet long.

Huge wakes are being produced all over the lake—even Winter Harbor is suffering, as it has become a mecca for every type of boating.

This is especially true of recent years, as Johnson's Cove has become jammed with huge (and illegally spaced) rafters: most of whom "mush" their way past eroding shorelines to their rafter's safe haven.

Below is a wake recorded that, while it was not the biggest we've witnessed, is still one of concern to those who want their lakeshores to avoid ending up filling the lake with fertilizer, road salt, dirt, loam, forest duff, moss, and (worse) silt. Shoreline moss is not supposed to appear floating on the surface of the lake—but it does!

I calculate this particular wake at 46-inches—something we never see when thunderstorms storms hit directly upon our shoreline.

Your attention to the "wet part" is requested.




Surface areas of our 35-year-old dock are now so covered with wet, slippery, algae, that they've become hazardous.

The problem here is mostly "over-sized" boats seeking haven from their own hazardous local waters.

This photo-disguised boat (below) is not the largest one we saw this weekend towing tubes, but it should give pause to those who think "over-sized" boats are free of this recent anathema to peaceable boaters and shorelines.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by ApS

That "monster" is actually the growing number of "over-sized" boats. You may recall that ten years ago, I called for a doubling in registration fees—and doubling them again—for boats over 24-feet long.

So you want to keep large boats off the largest lake in the state? Makes perfect sense.

[Rich]

Perhaps the problem isn't the "oversized boats", but it is the oversized homes that then install their own dock and its surrounding landscaping that is disturbing the natural forest that took years to grow and which surrounds the lake?

Fertilizer, road salt, dirt, loam, forest duff, moss, and (worse) silt, are not falling off the back of boats, but are the certainly the result of homes being built on the shores of the lake. Perhaps you should look in the mirror before casting stones from your glass house?

See, it can go both ways.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by APS

That "monster" is actually the growing number of "over-sized" boats. You may recall that ten years ago, I called for a doubling in registration fees—and doubling them again—for boats over 24-feet long.:

So, who gets to decide if there is such a thing as "over sized" for Winnipesaukee?

Who will determine what the maximum acceptable size is?

Why is it acceptable to financially penalize people who need enough room to stay overnight on their boat with their kids and want to enjoy Winnipesaukee?

Perhaps you may want to adjust to the times and raise your dock by a foot or so. The lake has changed from what it was 30 or 40 years ago and it will always be changing. It is predominantly a power boat lake with a very small percentage of sailboats. People who cannot accept the changes and think you should be able to kayak across the broads on the Fourth of July may be happier on a smaller lake that better fits with their needs and expectations.

I would not want to look out at the lake every day and have complaints about what I see. I enjoy seeing all of the different types and styles of boats go by.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

Why is it acceptable to financially penalize people who need enough room to stay overnight on their boat with their kids and want to enjoy Winnipesaukee?

Yes, I agree with this whole post!

And I want to add, why is it ok to financially penalize people who choose to buy a larger boat to weekend on, instead of a waterfront or island property to do about the same thing?

The lake is a wonderful resource that we all can share. When you hear kids laughing (screaming), boats enjoying the water (loud engines and wakes), music (too loud or not your choice of genre), it's all people enjoying the lake.

Instead of looking at these people with a sour face and trying to say that they are enjoying the lake in a way that you do not approve, just be happy that we have such a wonderful resource to enjoy.

No, I'm not promoting that everyone should be too loud, or too damaging, or too obnoxious, but these are the sounds of summer on the lake. If you don't like this sort of activity, perhaps you should own property on a much smaller lake or perhaps a pond where there isn't enough water depth to allow for such activities. Don't try to make Lake Winnipesaukee something different than what it is. It's use and activities will always evolve with time.

Enjoy and be appreciative. Fill your camera with photos of people that are enjoying the lake, and smile while doing I, instead of wasting your your time by trying to capture photos of people doing things that you don't like. Your life and heart will be filled with much more joy! You'll probably even smile more!

Now back to the Meredith NWZ discussion

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by ApS

Surface areas of our 35-year-old dock are now so covered with wet, slippery, algae, that they've become hazardous.

Really? I don't see that in any of your pics. Just sayin...

[neckdweller]

Originally Posted by ApS

This photo-disguised boat (below) is not the largest one we saw this weekend towing tubes, but it should give pause to those who think "over-sized" boats are free of this recent anathema to peaceable boaters and shorelines.

I could be wrong but looking at this picture the big fast boat is creating less wake than the other boat (can't tell if big or small) that appears to be plowing through the water at less than planing speed.

[radiocontester]

This?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePcUA2pln8Q

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by ApS

Huge wakes are being produced all over the lake—even Winter Harbor is suffering, as it has become a mecca for every type of boating.

I'll bet that you have to wear a life vest while sitting in you living room at your camp because of the "Huge wakes" that some of these boats leave.

[garysanfran]

Every law is useless.

[HellRaZoR004]

24 feet is large? I think you need a reality check.

Go watch some of the recent wind wave videos this year and tell me they aren't causing as much or more damage.

[SAMIAM]

Speaking of large wakes.....I'm amazed at the size of the wakes produced by the wake board boats.They are designed with to take on extra weight in the ballast tanks and it keeps them on 3/4 plane.
Wakes appear to be 3' to 4'

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

Speaking of large wakes.....I'm amazed at the size of the wakes produced by the wake board boats.They are designed with to take on extra weight in the ballast tanks and it keeps them on 3/4 plane.
Wakes appear to be 3' to 4'

they can add ballast (pump in water to ballast tanks) to their hulls to create wakes, some have multiple tanks

[AC2717]

I really think the problem is that the NWZ here is way too long and so people try to get speed as far as they can so it does not take them 10 minutes to get to the docks. there really is no reason for an area of that size to have a no wake zone in the first place, I think those proposing the larger nwz are being undone by their own doing in the first place with the large one they already have and most would not have a problem if they actually pushed back the NWZ further into the bay say the church landing point over to just past the little island

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by AC2717

I really think the problem is that the NWZ here is way too long and so people try to get speed as far as they can so it does not take them 10 minutes to get to the docks. there really is no reason for an area of that size to have a no wake zone in the first place, I think those proposing the larger nwz are being undone by their own doing in the first place with the large one they already have and most would not have a problem if they actually pushed back the NWZ further into the bay say the church landing point over to just past the little island

I have to chuckle at that one...WTH is the all-fired, rush for heaven's sake?
There's no way it takes 10 min to reach the docks at headway speed...it only takes 9!
I have been there and approaching the docks and have had people cruise by me to attempt to get there first...obviously, doing faster than headway.
I just shake my head...

[Descant]

Complaining here won't change much If you really want change:
1. Contact your local rep/senator to require speed limit changes, NRZ, etc. by the legislature, not the Commissioner of Safety.
2. Mandate that hearings be held in July/August, not September 30
3. Mandate that at least two hearings be held, 12 months apart

There is no reason that those who are complaining about the size of the Meredith NWZ can't file a petition to reduce the NWZ to some other size and produce a second set of hearings and give the Commissioner pause for thought. These changes occur because the petitioners show up and the opponents do not. Simple.

I don't want to re-start the issues over speed limits, but the process is the same in terms of who shows up, and who yells the loudest.

Call (not email) your state Reps and Senators (candidates) instead of whining to each other.

Vote on September 13.

[Lakeboater]

Originally Posted by Descant

Complaining here won't change much If you really want change:
1. Contact your local rep/senator to require speed limit changes, NRZ, etc. by the legislature, not the Commissioner of Safety.
2. Mandate that hearings be held in July/August, not September 30
3. Mandate that at least two hearings be held, 12 months apart

There is no reason that those who are complaining about the size of the Meredith NWZ can't file a petition to reduce the NWZ to some other size and produce a second set of hearings and give the Commissioner pause for thought. These changes occur because the petitioners show up and the opponents do not. Simple.

I don't want to re-start the issues over speed limits, but the process is the same in terms of who shows up, and who yells the loudest.

Call (not email) your state Reps and Senators (candidates) instead of whining to each other.

Vote on September 13.

Maybe 6 months apart? 12 months would just bring it up at the same time a year later.

[Winnisquamer]

Originally Posted by AC2717

they can add ballast (pump in water to ballast tanks) to their hulls to create wakes, some have multiple tanks

The good ones have multiple tanks or bags!

[Resident 2B]

My opinion is the Meredith NWZ should be made smaller, not larger. It is already too large and when you look at what is going on and do some thinking about what you are seeing, the only real solution is to reduce its size and to change the angle of the current NWZ line so that boats would want to come off plane farther away from the docks near MM.

R2B

[tis]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

Speaking of large wakes.....I'm amazed at the size of the wakes produced by the wake board boats.They are designed with to take on extra weight in the ballast tanks and it keeps them on 3/4 plane.
Wakes appear to be 3' to 4'

I agree! They make a huge wake!

[KPW]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

Speaking of large wakes.....I'm amazed at the size of the wakes produced by the wake board boats.They are designed with to take on extra weight in the ballast tanks and it keeps them on 3/4 plane.
Wakes appear to be 3' to 4'

We have one that goes around and around in the Barber Pole!!

[Greene's Basin Girl]

Originally Posted by KPW

We have one that goes around and around in the Barber Pole!!

The wake board boat's wakes are absolutely horrible. Our loon chicks have been separated from their parents by these waves.We lost one chick. Not sure if the wake was the culprit or not. One of these boats resides in a residence in Green's Basin and several came in over and over during the summer to wake board in the basin. A friend will not even paddle board when they are out there. Another friend's boat was damaged. Let's not even mention the erosion to our shorelines. I have been on the lake for 60+ years and I have never seen anything like it! I think the wakes could lead to a safety problem if someone ( especially a youngster) is in the water near shore. They are like ocean waves.

[chasedawg]

Originally Posted by Greene's Basin Girl

The wake board boat's wakes are absolutely horrible. Our loon chicks have been separated from their parents by these waves.We lost one chick. Not sure if the wake was the culprit or not. One of these boats resides in a residence in Green's Basin and several came in over and over during the summer to wake board in the basin. A friend will not even paddle board when they are out there. Another friend's boat was damaged. Let's not even mention the erosion to our shorelines. I have been on the lake for 60+ years and I have never seen anything like it! I think the wakes could lead to a safety problem if someone ( especially a youngster) is in the water near shore. They are like ocean waves.

Absolutely agree Green Basin Girl. Camp Belknap went from a ski boat to a Wake Board Boat last year being leased from Melvin village Marina. The boat creates huge waves and is very loud especially at 6:30 AM. The point being they don't wake board. They use the boat just for tubing and occasionally water skiing. Melvin Village Marina leased the wrong boat for what they use it for. The neighbors are getting frustrated with the large waves it produces and the open exhaust. Yes complaints have been submitted to the Director. We love everything about one of the best YMCA camps in the country but it is the wake board boat we don't love.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by chasedawg

Absolutely agree Green Basin Girl. Camp Belknap went from a ski boat to a Wake Board Boat last year being leased from Melvin village Marina. The boat creates huge waves and is very loud especially at 6:30 AM. The point being they don't wake board. They use the boat just for tubing and occasionally water skiing. Melvin Village Marina leased the wrong boat for what they use it for. The neighbors are getting frustrated with the large waves it produces and the open exhaust. Yes complaints have been submitted to the Director. We love everything about one of the best YMCA camps in the country but it is the wake board boat we don't love.

What about the children?

[Orion]

Originally Posted by Greene's Basin Girl

The wake board boat's wakes are absolutely horrible. Our loon chicks have been separated from their parents by these waves.We lost one chick. Not sure if the wake was the culprit or not. One of these boats resides in a residence in Green's Basin and several came in over and over during the summer to wake board in the basin. A friend will not even paddle board when they are out there. ...........Another friend's boat was damaged. Let's not even mention the erosion to our shorelines. I have been on the lake for 60+ years and I have never seen anything like it! .......

Clearly Greens Basin is not an appropriate place to be using a wakeboard boat. The shoreline in that area and small bays/inlets is not conditioned naturally for large waves as other open areas of the lake are. Erosion will certainly be excessive in this area from these boats which should be relegated to the large open bays or the Broads. I'm not advocating more laws, but self-regulation by users of these boats will prevent petitioners from seeking same. It's all about common sense (I know, it's not common).

[ApS]

Rich:

Perhaps the problem isn't the "oversized boats", but it is the oversized homes that then install their own dock and its surrounding landscaping that is disturbing the natural forest that took years to grow and which surrounds the lake?

Fertilizer, road salt, dirt, loam, forest duff, moss, and (worse) silt, are not falling off the back of boats, but are the certainly the result of homes being built on the shores of the lake. Perhaps you should look in the mirror before casting stones from your glass house?

See, it can go both ways.

We own an acre of lakefront property—with half fully forested. (No lawn ).

The erosive effects of weekend boating with over-sized boats are clearly evident across both shorelines. On weekends, shoreline waters go from clear to turbid.

I'm not promoting that everyone should be too loud, or too damaging, or too obnoxious

So...just how obnoxious should they be?

TiltonBB:

So, who gets to decide if there is such a thing as "over sized" for Winnipesaukee?

The market. Taxes and fees are used for incentive for change.

Who else will give the NHMP the resources to enforce the NWZ in Meredith?

Who will determine what the maximum acceptable size is?

The market.

Why is it acceptable to financially penalize people who need enough room to stay overnight on their boat with their kids and want to enjoy Winnipesaukee?

Because they are a major part of the problem of oversized wakes? (And the cost is carried by others as a "second home" for income tax purposes—(This year!)

Perhaps you may want to adjust to the times and raise your dock by a foot or so.

As it is, sitting on my dock, my feet can't reach the gunwale of my canoe. Maybe I should practice jumping in from a foot higher?

The lake has changed from what it was 30 or 40 years ago and it will always be changing.

A change needs to be made to keep Winnipesaukee's hillsides from sliding into the lake.

Weekends, shoreline waters go from clear to turbid.

It is predominantly a power boat lake with a very small percentage of sailboats.

Can you guess why that is?

People who cannot accept the changes and think you should be able to kayak across the broads on the Fourth of July may be happier on a smaller lake that better fits with their needs and expectations.

• Perhaps because of "whitewater-kayaking", kayakers and sea-kayakers think they can handle anything thrown their way.

Some don't come back.

• What happened to "The Lake is for Everybody"?

I would not want to look out at the lake every day and have complaints about what I see. I enjoy seeing all of the different types and styles of boats go by.

Most enjoyable is watching the most eye catching of the towable watersports: slalom skiing, "sky-skiing" and tubing. Watching Moth-class sailboats, catamarans, windsurfers and ultralights is entertaining. Watching the wakeboarders and wakesurfing is boring—and sometimes—deafening!

Watching 75-MPH speedboats dodging all of them—not so much.

Not being able to hear my cellphone or radio at the dock isn't entertaining with over-sized wakes crashing ashore, and sometimes, even shaking my piling dock!

(I hadn't really bothered to make a note of this, until a family member—peaceably reading in the sun—and I looked up at each other when a wake shook the dock! As soon as I figure out a way to best videotape this mostly-weekend phenomenon, I'll take one).

The advent of pontoon boats, which leave a scant wake, is welcomed very much.

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Really? I don't see that in any of your pics. Just sayin...

All better?



The dry areas to the left and under the stairway aren't slippery with algae. The darkest areas, regularly soaked by oversized wakes, got "noticed" after my knee surgery!

Now, back to the wake problem elsewhere...

.

[MAXUM]

Don't know I sort of just shake my head at the content of this entire thread. If things continue on the course they seem to be taking the lake is going to end up being chopped up, sliced and diced into areas where upon entering them you'll need to bring the check list of what is "allowable" and what speed is appropriate. Is it me or can anyone else see the insanity this represents?

For cripes sake there is enough laws, rules and regulations on the books, putting up more does nothing to solve the problem so long as the enforcement piece is not exercised.

There are already laws on the books for loud exhaust, liability for any damage done by the wake you leave behind, 150 passage rule, disturbing the peace, reckless operation, we even now have a speed limit and on and on. That pretty much covers every gripe about wakes, noise, speed etc.. yet that still is not enough. Does this not illustrate that laws are useless if they are not readily enforced. Simply put unless you all want a fleet of MP around every corner busting people for every little nit picky thing they do nothing is going to make you happy, or let me guess the sight of all the MP boats, the fact they may need to speed to catch somebody, or you have to listen to sirens blairing at all hours of the day is also unacceptable as well. It's a no win situation.

[SIKSUKR]

My 2 cents. The huge NW zone there is part of the problem. First, its so far across it really is missed by most except regular users. Second, its so large and far from ones destination that many "push it" as far as they can. Third, since it was created that far out it seems boats re producing bigger wakes in the MYC area. I thought this ridiculously large area was setup to with MYC in mind and is why its that far down Meredith Bay in the first place. Fourth, I have not been there in a few years but this years Bizer chart shows scattered markers that, in a straight line would go way past M Marine but stop quite a ways offshore from there. I guess looking at a Bizer chart I'd be confused where one would start headway speed if you were on the MM side. Fifth, to APS, is a 35 year old dock still supposed to be algae free? What?

[thinkxingu]

This is a total generalization based on my many hours anchoring in "quiet" coves: wakeboard boaters tend to be much less thoughtful than other crafts--I don't know what it is, but they always come closer to us and other anchored boats and the shore, and they always seem louder and more obnoxious.

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk

[ITD]

Rich people problems.

[kawishiwi]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

This is a total generalization based on my many hours anchoring in "quiet" coves: wakeboard boaters tend to be much less thoughtful than other crafts--I don't know what it is, but they always come closer to us and other anchored boats and the shore, and they always seem louder and more obnoxious.

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk

So...I am fishing maybe 300 ft from shore along a dropoff just outside Morrison cove east of the L.I. bridge when a family decided they needed to disregard thousands of open acres of water to wakeboard in circles around my little tin fishing boat. They had to run periously close to shallow rock water to accomplish this. Totally legal. They were just "having fun", "enjoying the lake", "exercising freedom",...to be the biggest A-holes I've encountered in N.H. since I moved here in '93. Could not be bothered to spend .50c of gas to go a little bit further into the large bay so they could burn $10+ of gas circling me within shouting distance of their dock just east of the mouth of Morrison cove. If you recognize yourself from this description you should be very proud of yourself. You are a "man", and I use that term loosely, of great distinction. You do what you do, I'll do what I do. No harm, no foul.

But...for all of you that have, or will, defend this kind of behavior, "'cus FREEDOM", should really think hard if that is the way you would raise children or expect them to behave once grown. And if you don't, why would you defend the "right" of others to be recklessly obnoxious just because it's Saturday on the lake?

[meredith weekender]

so did anyone on the forum go to this hearing and what was the outcome????

Thanks in advance.

[Rich]

FYI: Looks like this was granted:

https://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/...-bay-order.pdf

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by Rich

FYI: Looks like this was granted:

https://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/...-bay-order.pdf

I must say that I am very surprised this passed! All they did was move the problem in front of some other house or business...

Dan

[AC2717]

from what I read it appears there was more opposition to this than those that were for it, even going as far as to mention that if anything the opposition would like it moved back to original location.

with this point, one wonders how it passed
now the next row of people will complain and before we know it all the way to Spindle point will be a NWZ

I guess these people do not understand that wake waves travel and are produced when getting on plane and off plane; and would be better suited for it to be past them further in the bay then before them

Wolfeboro great example of how a smaller NWZ helps out the bay

[Rich]

It goes to show you, don't sit here online and try to say what makes sense, get to the hearings and voice your concerns. If you can't make it to the hearing, then at least write in your opinion.

If the deadline hasn't passed, you could appeal the decision, get working on this and gather support.

But debating it here does nothing.

It's going to be a long winter, how long until ice-out?

[BroadHopper]

Grouse Point and Long Bay\South Down Farm residents are already thinking about a No wake proposal in front of their docks. It won't be long!

[Rich]

Maybe I should have said that debating it here after the fact doesn't help, but instead gather support or opposition and then get a crew to go to the hearing and speak, or get s bunch of people to send in a written petition.

It seems we've made a difference before, so it can be done again!

[AC2717]

as usual these hearings take place while most of us are not around and not during the summer.

and letters don't see to have much weight anymore, in person the only way to go but at same time expecting to take a day off from work and drive X amount of hours for a cause is sometimes too much - with all the other battles in your life


I for one have done this on multiple occasions and has worked and sometimes hasn't
I will tell you this though, I will be on the look out for the SDS one and that will make a point because it will redirect travel routes in Pagus Bay and force more traffic into an already crowded area that has tough navigation on weekends.

I see it like people moving to a nuisance and then trying to change it, the travel lanes in Paugus Bay and Meredith Bay wake issues always there, not till after someone moves in and then wants to change things, - Much like the Ames Farm issue some years back

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by AC2717

as usual these hearings take place while most of us are not around and not during the summer.

and letters don't see to have much weight anymore, in person the only way to go but at same time expecting to take a day off from work and drive X amount of hours for a cause is sometimes too much - with all the other battles in your life


I for one have done this on multiple occasions and has worked and sometimes hasn't
I will tell you this though, I will be on the look out for the SDS one and that will make a point because it will redirect travel routes in Pagus Bay and force more traffic into an already crowded area that has tough navigation on weekends.

I see it like people moving to a nuisance and then trying to change it, the travel lanes in Paugus Bay and Meredith Bay wake issues always there, not till after someone moves in and then wants to change things, - Much like the Ames Farm issue some years back

I am in the SDS boat club and have been for 10 years. I DO NOT want a NWZ there. You are correct it will just push traffic to the other side of Little Island and then Margate will apply for a NWZ. This is going to have a huge domino effect.

[HellRaZoR004]

Originally Posted by AC2717

as usual these hearings take place while most of us are not around and not during the summer.

and letters don't see to have much weight anymore, in person the only way to go but at same time expecting to take a day off from work and drive X amount of hours for a cause is sometimes too much - with all the other battles in your life


I for one have done this on multiple occasions and has worked and sometimes hasn't
I will tell you this though, I will be on the look out for the SDS one and that will make a point because it will redirect travel routes in Pagus Bay and force more traffic into an already crowded area that has tough navigation on weekends.

I see it like people moving to a nuisance and then trying to change it, the travel lanes in Paugus Bay and Meredith Bay wake issues always there, not till after someone moves in and then wants to change things, - Much like the Ames Farm issue some years back

Not true. The Springfield Cove NRZ petition was denied solely based on opposition in the form of mostly letters. http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...2&d=1472598937

The problem here is the petitioners provided ample evidence of damage ($ and bodily) while the group that wanted it thrown out didn't provide sufficient evidence to turn it down.

Part of the problem lies with when these hearings are scheduled and the availability of those both in favor and against. I would have liked to provide video evidence that the NWZ wasn't the issue assuming the laws (as previously written) were sufficiently enforced, but due to timing I was either out of the country and the short notice with the end of the season approaching.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by HellRaZoR004

The problem here is the petitioners provided ample evidence of damage ($ and bodily) while the group that wanted it thrown out didn't provide sufficient evidence to turn it down.

.

I agree with you in this case, I did not notice if they actually provided evidence or just word of mouth. I do not recall seeing proof of repairs or evidence, at the same time though, it could be reasoned that these damages could have been a result of a boater not following the rules, or they just simply not tying their boat up correct or any of the other major factors, I can certainly understand damage to property on the land whichever the case may be. I have also fallen off my boat when buttoning it up while wakes/waves were coming in on the bay, it happens, my mistake for not paying more attention, also my wife has fallen getting onto the dock from wakes coming in or the wind generating waves sometimes can't tell which is which

IMHO what I saw in this case was a lack of common sense on the committee's part to make a decision based lake operation/navigation as a whole. personally I wont mind the longer enjoyment of the lake to get to the town docks, but its not going to change the results of the previous NWZ - again wakes and waves travel and only have a chance to build up the longer they travel

[Descant]

I think the original petition process allowed for hearings year round. That was changed to July, August, September to benefit "summer folk" For many, if it is on a weekday, it is still difficult to attend, no matter where you live.

In some minds, the 25 signatures is a low threshold. Maybe it should be 25 UNRELATED signers?

Let's face it. Petitioners will generally be more enthusiastic for their cause, and better organized than the opposition. That gives therm the advantage, as well as the element of surprise. Many people don't find out about these changes until they come in the spring and see the MP install a new marker.

Perhaps the legislature should review the entire process? I think, far back, when a lake wanted to prohibit motorized craft or set an entire lake speed limit, it had to go through the legislature, not the Department of Safety. The petition process is easier for most, but is it too easy?

[BroadHopper]

https://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/...-bay-order.pdf

Rumors abuzz that abutters on the other side of the NWZ wants to further the zone! Especially Grouse Point!

[elbie]

Just looked at the calendar and would suggest a solution to the problem has been right in front of us, all along! SPEED BUMPS!

[upthesaukee]

We went to Meredith today. I think it took me right around 9 mins to come from just out the NWZ (middle right area of the buoys) to docked at the sidewalk end of the first dock area. Nice little putt putt in, easy to keep track of whose going where, and little wake action at the docks. If it takes me a few extra minutes to come in or go out, so be it. A little more quality time on the lake is fine.

Sent from my GT-P5210 using Tapatalk

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by upthesaukee

We went to Meredith today. I think it took me right around 9 mins to come from just out the NWZ (middle right area of the buoys) to docked at the sidewalk end of the first dock area. Nice little putt putt in, easy to keep track of whose going where, and little wake action at the docks. If it takes me a few extra minutes to come in or go out, so be it. A little more quality time on the lake is fine.

Sent from my GT-P5210 using Tapatalk

Lol...I did the same thing today. Previously, I had said "there's no way it takes 10 minutes to putt in to the docks...I did take almost 10 minutes...but i still maintain "what's the rush?" I'm not on the lake to be in any hurry to do anything...

[bigpatsfan]

To me the issue is not how much time it takes to pass thru a NWV as I am not sure if adding ten minutes to my travel is acceptable and if it is acceptable, how about adding twenty minutes or thirty minutes.

in another thread, it is reported that the Town of Wolfeboro looking to do the same thing.

If Meredith does extend the length of the NWV, should we expect Alton, Gilford, and all the other Towns on the Lake look to extend the length of their current NWV?

For example, I can see the same rational being used to extend the Meredith NWV being used to extend the NWV in Alton to past Sandy Point.

We also have Towns instituting no rafting zones.

To me, the issue is Towns on the Lake having this power in the first place.

I am not sure having four of five folks on a Town Board making rules that effect life on the Lake is a smart idea in the first place?

Would it make sense to have some sort of State involvement? What is the current role of the State in this process? It was the State that instituted the speed limit not the Towns... Does the Town have to have State approval to reduce the speed limit in their portion of the Lake?

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by bigpatsfan

To me the issue is not how much time it takes to pass thru a NWV as I am not sure if adding ten minutes to my travel is acceptable and if it is acceptable, how about adding twenty minutes or thirty minutes.

in another thread, it is reported that the Town of Wolfeboro looking to do the same thing.

If Meredith does extend the length of the NWV, should we expect Alton, Gilford, and all the other Towns on the Lake look to extend the length of their current NWV?

For example, I can see the same rational being used to extend the Meredith NWV being used to extend the NWV in Alton to past Sandy Point.

We also have Towns instituting no rafting zones.

To me, the issue is Towns on the Lake having this power in the first place.

I am not sure having four of five folks on a Town Board making rules that effect life on the Lake is a smart idea in the first place?

Would it make sense to have some sort of State involvement? What is the current role of the State in this process? It was the State that instituted the speed limit not the Towns... Does the Town have to have State approval to reduce the speed limit in their portion of the Lake?

The state has one big role in all this...it is their responsibility to ENFORCE the zones. To me, it doesn't look like this is happening to any great degree. So what we get is scofflaws that ruin it for the majority.

[bigpatsfan]

So the Town enacts a rule and expects someone else to enforce it?

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by bigpatsfan

So the Town enacts a rule and expects someone else to enforce it?

I don't think it is the town partitioning the rule, it is a particular businessman capitalizing on SUP, kayaks and such. Originally someone wanted to teach water skiing and reduce the NWZ. Guess that did not go well and canned the thought. Greed my friend is a root of evil.

[noreast]

my guess is the paddle board rentals, May be the same company?

[BroadHopper]

http://www.citizen.com/news/2016-09-...redith_Ba.html

Please attend the meeting and voice your opinion.
The way I see it the lake and boating was here first before the marina and the bayshore residents. They should know that boat traffic can be a problem and build to see fit. Instead they created the NWZ. Thus the boats are speeding up or slowing down in that spot. A fault of their own. Now they want to move the problem down the bay and pissed off their neighbors! A vicious cycle.
Akwa Marina and Bayside Marina knew this when they built their slips. Instead of partitioning a NWZ out front and irritate boaters, they built wave barriers and they were very effective! Why can't Meredith Marina and Bayside Marina do the same?

[noreast]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

http://www.citizen.com/news/2016-09-...redith_Ba.html

Whenever a new development, marina etc. build on the shore, they decide to blame the boats for the waves etc. The boat traffic was there first and they should know better. But instead they decide to ticked people off for their own benefits.

They should do the same that Akwa Marina and the marina in front of T-bones, build a wave barrier around the docks!

Right, They act surprised by the situation when the plan all along is to buy, Then have the rules changed for there benefit. A little upfront spending on a barrier would go along way for community relations. I wouldn't spend a penny on any one who pulled that crap.

[upthesaukee]

The town cannot create or change a NWZ. It must be petitioned, and go through a hearing process. The process includes public comment.

Sent from my GT-P5210 using Tapatalk

[bigpatsfan]

thanks for clarifying the process (I am bad for not fully reading the letters contained in the link)

[Hillcountry]

Had a lousy, experience yesterday coming in to the Meredith marina gas dock. The east wind had kicked up in the afternoon and was pushing rollers right into the docks...add to that some Yahoo coming in for gas who added to it with his own wake and it was all I could do to hold my boat, which is a tritoon, from being battered against the dock.
I stayed with it until it calmed down a bit and then walked in and made arrangements to have my boat valeted out for the day.
Definitely the worst conditions I have experienced at Meredith to date and every time I am in the bay ( which is every time I take my boat out ) I see blatant disregard or ignorance of the no wake areas there and all over the lake.

[HellRaZoR004]

Not surprised one bit. This whole thing is ridiculous, and this summer is going to test a lot of people with how busy the lake is projected to be.

[fatlazyless]

You may have seen groups of 4 - 10 paddlers on stand-up paddle boards, in a paddle stand-up class with a teacher, out on the water in the area between www.ekalactivitycenter.com, and the Inn at Church Point, and the Meredith Marina. EKAL has about three classes/week, plus they rent out s.u.p.'s, plus there's some other yoga s.u.p. classes that use the area near the Meredith Yacht Club, on the other side of the bay, as well.

Paddling an s.u.p. for a beginner paddler, or doing the downward dog yoga pose on a paddle board is best done on calm water....... namaste!

https://www.facebook.com/supnh/ on Alton Bay is somewhat similar, but also somewhat different, to EKAL in Meredith Bay for s.u.p. rentals/class instruction, and ditto that for Dive Winnipesaukee-s.u.p. rentals's in Wolfeboro Bay which has the Bay Back channel, nearby.

While I am probably the world's greatest s.u.p. yoga athlete, capable of easily achieving the one legged 'tree pose', holding it steady through motorboat wakes of two-three feet passing underneath ....... the calm waters of the Meredith Bay no-wake zone are definitely a big plus ......so here's a big namaste! to all you thoughtful boaters, and thoughtful jet-skiers, who slow it down to 6-mph or less, upon crossing into the Meredith Bay no-wake zone. ..... thank-you kindly!

Here's something to google. In March, 2017; 43-year old Chris Bertish, a surfer from South Africa, completed a s.u.p. paddle board crossing of the atlantic ocean, paddling from Morocco to Antigua in 93-days........ so's paddling an s.u.p. from Meredith to down town Wolfeboro seems like it could be doable as long as you try it mid-week, M-Tu-W-Th, when the lake is much more quiet?

[Pine Island Guy]

whether people are pro or con... it would be beneficial for the State to include a map with their findings that shows the current and proposed NWZ!

the ice is turning gray'ish... PIG

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by Pine Island Guy

whether people are pro or con... it would be beneficial for the State to include a map with their findings that shows the current and proposed NWZ!

the ice is turning gray'ish... PIG

PIG, this was posted on the I Boat Facebook page.

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk

[fatlazyless]

So, what's the increase in shore line linear feet where it is close to the Meredith Marina?.... like, does it add 500' of shoreline or what?...... and, say-hey ...... you got to check out this 1:02-minute video at www.pleasewearit.com .... so how much is the NH penalty for speeding above the 6-mph, no wake speed, and does this NH violation earn you penalty points with your auto insurance for the next 15-years, or what?

Looking at the photo .....it's my guess-timate that it adds about 500 linear feet, evenly, up both sides of the bay. For a rowboat, kayak, s.u.p. paddle board, or small sailboat, 500' is probably a lot of welcome, additional, 45-mph speed protected water going out and up the middle of the big water, meredith bay. For a motor boat, or jet ski, traveling through 500' of water at the maximum 6-mph, no wake speed .... it is maybe 60-90 seconds extra time to get through this expanded no wake zone?

So, how much does a no-wake speeding violation cost you here ...... what's the price?

[KDL]

If the proposed no wake zone goes in to effect, I will make far fewer trips to Meredith by boat. It will be quicker to get a dock in Center Harbor.

[Bootkie2]

Looking at Google maps I can count roughly 9 to 12 docks benefitting from extra footage of the new NWZ. It's really hard to argue residential impact in that case. In fact it's really hard to argue all of the other proposed benefits as well ( environmental or scenic value etc). How can anyone correlate those consequences to just 500 extra feet? The idea that someone can successfully make such a ridiculous arguement is probably scarier than the actual nwz itself.

[Lakeboater]

Originally Posted by KDL

If the proposed no wake zone goes in to effect, I will make far fewer trips to Meredith by boat. It will be quicker to get a dock in Center Harbor.

The hearing was Sept 2016 and it passed, moving the no wake zone further out in Meredith Bay.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by KDL

If the proposed no wake zone goes in to effect, I will make far fewer trips to Meredith by boat.
It will be quicker to get a dock in Center Harbor.

With a near-lifetime on Lake Winnipesaukee, "quicker" had never entered into my highly-gratifying Big Lake experience.

[WJT2]

So at HS/6 MPH you will travel about 528 ft per minute. So by extending the NWZ it will take you about an extra 2 minutes on a round trip visit Meredith next summer. Bonus is you get to relax an extra 2 minutes, save fuel, save wear and tear on your engine and yourself. I'll have to check my schedule to see where I can make some adjustment to find extra time! If boaters showed a little more courtesy and obeyed the 150' rule there would probably be no need for more regulation, BUT.........

[fatlazyless]

... hmmmm ...have no real clue how many extra feet the new nwz gets increased along both sides of the bay ..... and just took a guess at 500' ...... it may be 1000' ..... it may be 300' ..... it may be 1387' ..... I honestly have no clue?

[Rich]

So I'm guessing that no one noticed that the post that started this continued discussion was made on April 1st?

[MAXUM]

In reading the "evidence" that was provided, two things come to mind. First, overly dramatic, reminds me of these "as seen on TV" where unless you don't buy this new fangled 19.99 can opener a conventional can opener will guarantee you will wear the contents of the can. Oh and you get a two for one deal if you order in the next 10 minutes plus the added handling charge. After you buy it get it home and try it, well it's doesn't work as advertised and you just got screwed. The same goes for this NWZ everyone just got screwed for a overstated problem that may exist for several hours on a few weekends during two months of the year.

Second...my solution harsh as it may be. To the guy who supposedly wrecked his knee, learn how to walk on a rocking boat or don't get on a boat in the first place, same advice to the guy that hit his head on the windshield. It's a boat and waves happen. To the parents of the kid that nearly got "crushed" give them a ticket for child endangerment clearly they aren't paying attention to their little ones. How to fix the broken dock posts, dump the big boat and get one that's smaller. In fact if those complaining about boat wakes were that concerned they wouldn't buy big boats that are so large they break the docks they are tied to AND moreover are contributing the problem elsewhere by the wakes they make but that's OK so long as it's not in their front yard.

As astutely pointed out by one proponent, the problem as described did not exist so long as there was enforcement in the area. This is useless otherwise and I agree with others... the dominos will start falling elsewhere just a matter of time.

[noreast]

It's what we do best now, Create laws to enforce laws we created that we don't enforce.

[bilproject]

No wake zones solve a wake problem for those in the NWZ. However, they create a bigger wake problem for those just outside of the no wake zone where there was not a problem before the NWZ was created. I live on Bear Island just south of the NWZ between Bear and Pine Islands. On a summer weekend when the cruisers head out of Paugus Bay on the way to Braun Bay they begin to come off plane in front of our house. This creates breakers 2-3 feet in height that crash into our dock and shore line. Our normal sandy beach bottom turns brown with the dirt and forest litter that is washed from the land. In the afternoon as the return traffic picks up boats powering up make the same large wake. If the NWZ did not exist these wakes would be 60 to 80% smaller from boats passing by on plane. Wait and see but in the near future the Meredith NWZ will again be requested for an extension by those just outside of the NWZ as they will experience the conditions I describe above. The logical conclusion to these repeated extensions will be a NWZ lake.

I could request along with some of my neighbors to extend the no wake zone near my property. We certainly experience boat, dock and quality of life damage. However, my belief is that the no wake zone be removed is a better solution. The passage is more than large enough for traffic to safely pass within the 150 rule.

In the mean time you all could help me out by not coming straight up the bay. If you travel up the west side closer to Shep Browns and pass to the west of the red top past loon and about 1000 yards off pine, turning east after passing it. This will take you on the north side of a red, but that marks a rock to the east of the marker in about 12' of water at full lake Then head just south of the red top at the northwest corner of the NWZ you will only have to come off plane for about 100 feet passing through the NW corner of the NWZ. You will save a lot of time along with ending the damage done by your wake. This is perfectly legal as I discussed this method of transversing the NWZ with Marine Patrol at the site. Thanks for your help

[Hillcountry]

I guess it ultimately, comes down to which lakeside resident is more in need of relief from wakes, be it a business trying to insure the safety of it's employees and clients subject to danger and injury or a house/camp owner putting up with residual fallout of wakes that cause a lesser, but not unimportant issue with their "personal" shoreline.
Seems the powers that be, in this case, erred on the side of safety of marina employees and clients.
Farther up the bay, there would be less chance of personal injury with regard to the new NWZ's new parameters even though a new set of personal shoreline issues would arise to a new group of lakeside owners.

Just my opinion...

[AC2717]

the smaller the NWZ the smaller affect on land and other boats
the point on church landing would be an excellent spot to just past the little island near 25
minimal exposure, but those in power do not feel they need to do their homework

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by AC2717

the smaller the NWZ the smaller affect on land and other boats
the point on church landing would be an excellent spot to just past the little island near 25
minimal exposure, but those in power do not feel they need to do their homework

So...coming off plane say, 50 ft from the MM gas dock would be LESS damaging with regard to what and where that wake is smashing into than coming in at no wake speed?

Your logic doesn't add up sir...

I picture a free-for-all of Yahoos scrambling to beat others to their destinations (and I see this NOW with the NWZ where it was in 2016)
Moving it to Church's Landing would be utterly, ridiculous...thank god that will never happen.

[TiltonBB]

The problem is that everyone with waterfront property, except those in a sheltered cove, could make the same argument. The boats go by the house and leave a wake. That is what happens when you are on a lake.

Most property owners use fenders, whips, moorings, boat lifts, and have learned to prepare for and deal with the problem of wakes. Their children are taught to be aware of the issue and be safe around the water from an early age.

Numerous times people have spent hours in the area in front of my house with wakeboard boats that intentionally make large wakes. It is even worse when they play loud, lousy music over their amplified stereo systems. But, I would rather live with it than see even more rules and no wake zones on the lake. Although, I suppose I could get all my neighbors together and submit a petition for a new no wake zone in front of my house...................

Moving a perceived problem a few hundred feet in any direction does not eliminate the problem. The people in the State House that vote on these matters should be required to have some boating knowledge and experience before their opinion can count.

In recent years their poor decisions have solved nothing, addressed problems that didn't exist, and reduced many people's enjoyment of the lake.

[RTTOOL]

Originally Posted by WJT2

So at HS/6 MPH you will travel about 528 ft per minute. So by extending the NWZ it will take you about an extra 2 minutes on a round trip visit Meredith next summer. Bonus is you get to relax an extra 2 minutes, save fuel, save wear and tear on your engine and yourself. I'll have to check my schedule to see where I can make some adjustment to find extra time! If boaters showed a little more courtesy and obeyed the 150' rule there would probably be no need for more regulation, BUT.........

If the prop did not slip at all as it screws through the water, each rev theoretically propels the boat the forward a distance equal to the prop pitch. (a 24 inch pitch prop theoretically propels the boat 24 inches in one revolution). The propeller revolution rate is the engine rpm divided by the gear ratio. This propeller rpm times the prop pitch determines the theoretical distance that the boat should have moved in one minute, which can be converted to a theoretical boat speed in miles per hour. with a rpm at 600 and gear ratio of 1.5 and slip at .15 and a prop pitch of 24 will give you 7.7 mies per hour . so to travl 2000 feet would take about 15 minutes.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by RTTOOL

If the prop did not slip at all as it screws through the water, each rev theoretically propels the boat the forward a distance equal to the prop pitch. (a 24 inch pitch prop theoretically propels the boat 24 inches in one revolution). The propeller revolution rate is the engine rpm divided by the gear ratio. This propeller rpm times the prop pitch determines the theoretical distance that the boat should have moved in one minute, which can be converted to a theoretical boat speed in miles per hour. with a rpm at 600 and gear ratio of 1.5 and slip at .15 and a prop pitch of 24 will give you 7.7 mies per hour . so to travl 2000 feet would take about 15 minutes.

Hmmmm, so 7.7 miles per hour * 5,280 feet per mile equals 40,656 feet per hour. Divide that by 60 minutes per hour and we get 677.6 feet per minute. If we divide 2,000 feet by 677.6 feet per minute we get 2.95 minutes. So it takes 2.95 minutes to travel 2,000 feet at 7.7 mph, just under 3 minutes.

Too tired to check the rest of the math.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by ITD

Hmmmm, so 7.7 miles per hour * 5,280 feet per mile equals 40,656 feet per hour. Divide that by 60 minutes per hour and we get 677.6 feet per minute. If we divide 2,000 feet by 677.6 feet per minute we get 2.95 minutes. So it takes 2.95 minutes to travel 2,000 feet at 7.7 mph, just under 3 minutes.

Too tired to check the rest of the math.

So all this may be true.... it really doesn't matter when people are being stopped and forced to run at headway speed so far from their point of destination. Kinda like watching water boil.... this has everything to do with perception and that may very well encourage people to visit other places

[meredith weekender]

More than half of the offenders come and go from the Bay Shore Yacht club / Meredith Marina and they were the ones pushing for this expanded NWZ. Just a shame that everyone will suffer from the actions of few people that cannot follow the rules.