No wake zones

[depasseg]

Tis - His answer isn't clear to me. It sounds like they are just trying to determine if a vessel is going as slow as it can. Can you ask a clarifying question of: Can I go any speed under 6 MPH (according to a GPS) regardless of the wake produced?

Thanks,
Greg

[tis]

In my opinion his answer is pretty clear. The new wording in the law came about when the MP started patrolling in the ocean because boats could not always go slow enough to not cause a wake and still maintain steerage. The lake is a different story. As far as the lake is concerned he says:

"The officer would look at several things when considering a boat stop for a violation. They would include the existing water conditions, the boat’s wake, how much faster than necessary they are travelling, is the attitude of the bow “lifting” vs. flat, speed and size of other vessels in the immediate area, etc. I believe that a common sense application of these concepts by any boat operator will keep them safe and legal."


I do think the Weirs channel is a little different than other no wake zones and sometimes you might need a little more speed , but overall I wouldn't be making a wake when in a no wake zone. The best advice here is look behind you and see if you are making a wake. If you are, slow down.

[Orion]

How can that MP answer be clear when every parameter he listed is totally subjective? In other words it's completely up to the judgement of the MP officer (many of whom have far less boating experience then most of the boaters).

[Happy Gourmand]

Originally Posted by Orion

How can that MP answer be clear when every parameter he listed is totally subjective? In other words it's completely up to the judgement of the MP officer (many of whom have far less boating experience then most of the boaters).

Not for nothing, but I totally agree. The clarification from the MP was clear as mud. To clear this up, I feel that headway speed and no wake speed be defined as 6 MPH or less...period. The only exception that would allow any amount of subjective judgement by a LEO would be in the channel when the current doesn't allow for forward progress over the ground at 6MPH.

[SIKSUKR]

I agree that nothing was cleared up here at all.Still a judgement call.As far as wake size goes in a fast current,that will increase relative to water speed but maintaining steerage into a current can be done virtually standing still relative to land.The only way to maintain steerage going with a current is to go faster than the current which is why you might need to go faster than the 6 mph.Or keep turning your wheel from one side to the other or using reverse which makes no sense at all.

[jrc]

So my general rule still works, stay under 6 mph, unless a MP tells me to slow down.

Since I am only a Winni boater, the only exception would be a real strong current in the Weirs channel, might force me to go faster.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by jrc

So my general rule still works, stay under 6 mph, unless a MP tells me to slow down.

Since I am only a Winni boater, the only exception would be a real strong current in the Weirs channel, might force me to go faster.

OR...you've had a few beers and don't care.

[jrc]

Wow, what are you talking about? If you had so many you can't follow the rules, then you're too drunk to operate a boat.

Not to change the subject, but as far as I'm concerned the whole lake should be a no drunk operator zone. Maximum speed of 0 mph for drunk operators, they should be tied to the dock.

[depasseg]

Originally Posted by jrc

Wow, what are you talking about? If you had so many you can't follow the rules, then you're too drunk to operate a boat.

Not to change the subject, but as far as I'm concerned the whole lake should be a no drunk operator zone. Maximum speed of 0 mph for drunk operators, they should be tied to the dock.

I'm guessing that was a joke.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by depasseg

I'm guessing that was a joke.

Yes but not a very good one

[jrc]

OK, I'm a dope and didn't get it. Is it time to go to the lake yet...

[Chaselady]

I live by a no wake zone. The worst offenders I see, are the older drivers that have been driving a boat for decades. Their idea of no-wake is to just come off plane, and plow through throwing a queen Mary size tidal wave that can throw a boat onto it's dock. They aren't drunk, just oblivious.
The younger hot shots just fly through, full speed. At least they don't create as much damage that way.

[RailroadJoe]

I guess all you people with boats will have to buy oars. Then shut off the motors and row through the no wake zone. Maybe MP willm do the same.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by RailroadJoe

I guess all you people with boats will have to buy oars. Then shut off the motors and row through the no wake zone. Maybe MP willm do the same.

To heck with that Joe, I'm the captain, the crew rows.....

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by jrc

Wow, what are you talking about? If you had so many you can't follow the rules, then you're too drunk to operate a boat.

Not to change the subject, but as far as I'm concerned the whole lake should be a no drunk operator zone. Maximum speed of 0 mph for drunk operators, they should be tied to the dock.

Sorry I didn't mean that you personally had a few beers, although I worded that way.

Alcohol plays a big roll in the way people act on a hot mid July weekend.

Not to get off the "wake" subject but when inexperienced boaters get a few beers in them the results are what you see on that hot summer day. IMO that is.

I'm sure most Winni forum members know better and treat other boaters with respect.

[Dave R]

I recently spent a couple of days covering 210 miles of water in NY. Most of the no wake zones were posted at 5 MPH. Seems like a simple solution.

[caloway]

What's the deal with the NWZ between Eagle and Governors? Plenty of distance to shore and that area is like a giant washing machine anyway.

[Descant]

Like most NWZ areas, a group filed a petition, the MP held a hearing, there was little or no objection, so they granted the petition.

[Greene's Basin Girl]

Some newbies tried to make a NWZ area larger a few years back. Our area has an incredible amount of NWZ's. Many of us own who had owned property since the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, and 70's protested. We attended the meeting at the Moultonborough Town office and we spoke up. The increased area of the NWZ did not pass. If people don't say anything things around them can change in a blink of an eye.

[jrc]

And if you miss those meetings, the change is even harder to stop. Keep an eye on the DOS website for meeting announcements.

If you are complacent, a savvy petitioner can use the system to get what they want, take a look at the NRZ on three coves last year and the almost NWZ in the Barber Pole before that. They can keep trying over and over again.

[tis]

When you are in an area where you cannot be 150 feet from shore it is a no wake zone anyway. It just isn't marked.

[fpartri497]

that's correct > last year a M.P. told me that when not marked the safe passage law automatically kicks In. If less than 150 ft. .

[jrc]

You could make the argument that a lot of No Wake Zones do not need to exist, because they are redundant with the safe passage law. But I think in general, they need to be a NWZ to have the buoys.

I mean do Sally's Gut and the Weirs Channel need to be NWZ, there is no point in either that is more than 150' from shore? They are de-facto NWZ. Some places like Smith cove near Glendale might have a few square feet in the middle that are more than 150' from either shore, a dock or a moored boat, so I guess a NWZ keeps somebody from trying waterski in that spot.

[lfm]

Originally Posted by caloway

What's the deal with the NWZ between Eagle and Governors? Plenty of distance to shore and that area is like a giant washing machine anyway.

I actually think that area was better before the NWZ was instituted. Boats coming on and off plane are creating a bigger problem there.