Meredith NWZ Petition / Hearing

[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.

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by 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.

Hmmm...politician? Knowledge? That, my friend is the oxymoron of the times.
I'm for freedom and enjoying the beautiful lake too...the bigger, problem is lack of enforcement of the original, NWZ by Marine Patrol, who obviously, cannot be everywhere...all last season I never saw them in Meredith bay. That is not to say they didn't patrol there at all but I spent a lot of time there and only saw them outside Wiers channel (where they seem to camp out) and once at Braun Bay.
As long as there is no presence in any given area, unlawful boaters will and do take advantage of that.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Hillcountry

Hmmm...politician? Knowledge? That, my friend is the oxymoron of the times.
I'm for freedom and enjoying the beautiful lake too...the bigger, problem is lack of enforcement of the original, NWZ by Marine Patrol, who obviously, cannot be everywhere...all last season I never saw them in Meredith bay. That is not to say they didn't patrol there at all but I spent a lot of time there and only saw them outside Wiers channel (where they seem to camp out) and once at Braun Bay.
As long as there is no presence in any given area, unlawful boaters will and do take advantage of that.

Hmm and it's not an oxymoron to think that a larger but non-enforced NWZ is going to make any difference? Bottom line is this, there would be no need at all for any NWZ if there was a MP boat parked over there babysitting what's going on 24X7. This whole thing is to make everyone "feel good" however if the town of Meredith starts to get less boat traffic from this and that is a good possibility bet this gets quickly amended.

[fatlazyless]

So .......... for boats with motors, the extra distance of 500 or 1000', or whatever, is no big deal for getting in or out of the Meredith town docks area.

But ...... for small, non motorized, self-propelled boats like stand up paddle boards, kayaks, canoes, row boats, and small sailboats ....the extra space created by an increased no wake zone makes a big difference ..... it adds to more big water space ..... that is more SAFE space.

It's the difference between sharing the water with 45-mph boaters, and 6-mph boaters ....... which is a 39-mph difference ...... just do the math ..... 39-mph is a huge difference for the attitude of a boat/jet ski out on the water...... as seen from a small boat like a stand up paddle board, or a kayak. It is very possible for a 45-mph boat to totally not even see a s.u.p. or a kayak what with all the possible driver distractions such as not keeping a good look out ahead, speed, sun, fatigue, wake bouncing, cell phone use, other passengers in the boat, sight blocked by the raised bow, and just not thinking there may be a kayak out there ..... like who knew?

Not all motor boaters do the same good job of driving safely ...... everyone here on this forum drives totally super-duper, totally safe .....at all times .......but, there's a few non-forum boaters who do not!

[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.

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by 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.

"More than half"! That's a bold statement!
But I'm sure you did your due diligence and sat with your Swarovski spotting scope and recorded all the comings and goings that happened in your "given" data season to compile such a detailed report!
Perhaps if you took this data to the meeting, and presented it to the board, the outcome would have been a reduction in the NWZ. Clearly, there would have been a down vote on the petition had the board had your data...after all, these offenders being the cause of all the wakes and damage would not have had a "sea leg" to stand on!
Oh, by the way, enjoy your summer of "suffering" the new NWZ!

[Acrossamerica]

I think the solution is to raise the price of Boat fuel to about $15 - $18 a gallon. That would reduce the number of "Mine is Bigger Than Yours" trophy boats, cut down on the tremendous noise when they open them up and send the bow towards the sky thereby endangering all manner of other leisurely boaters. And in the name of sustainability, global warming and more picturesque Lake views, encourage more sailboats.

Time for another petition to Concord.

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by Acrossamerica

I think the solution is to raise the price of Boat fuel to about $15 - $18 a gallon. That would reduce the number of "Mine is Bigger Than Yours" trophy boats, cut down on the tremendous noise when they open them up and send the bow towards the sky thereby endangering all manner of other leisurely boaters. And in the name of sustainability, global warming and more picturesque Lake views, encourage more sailboats.

Time for another petition to Concord.

Same can be done with a statewide increase of $10 on boat registrations...the extra funds going STRAIGHT to Marine Patrol for a NWZ enforcement team to be dispatched to all major trouble areas on the lake. Low profile patrols would both garner extra funds through ticketing offenders as well as creating a presence on the lake that would cause same to think twice about breaking the law...I would gladly, pony up the extra fee.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Hillcountry

Same can be done with a statewide increase of $10 on boat registrations...the extra funds going STRAIGHT to Marine Patrol for a NWZ enforcement team to be dispatched to all major trouble areas on the lake. Low profile patrols would both garner extra funds through ticketing offenders as well as creating a presence on the lake that would cause same to think twice about breaking the law...I would gladly, pony up the extra fee.

...affecting and punishing the wrong boaters...

Maybe ten years ago, I suggested doubling boat registration fees for 24-foot and greater boats. Today, however, I would exempt pontoon boats because of their minimal wakes.

.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by ApS

...affecting and punishing the wrong boaters...

Maybe ten years ago, I suggested doubling boat registration fees for 24-foot and greater boats. Today, however, I would exempt pontoon boats because of their minimal wakes.

.

So your discriminating against a specific boating crowd...exempting pontoon boats.... I surprised you wouldn't want to exempt Sailboats as well.... What about slow moving barges?

On top of that, boat registration is boat registration, so are you saying someone that has a 24' or larger boat, in Portsmouth harbor and never comes to the lake deserves an increase as well.....

APS, you idea really doesn't work....

[fatlazyless]

Here in New Hampshire, boats like kayaks, canoes, row boats, s.u.p.'s, and sailboats under 12' not including the rudder, do not need a registration, and pay nothing to be on the water. If you add an engine, gasoline or electric, then they do need to be registered with a bow sticker.

Something like seven different states in the USA require kayak and canoes to either be registered or to have a user fee sticker.

If the State of NH needs more money for the Dept of Safety, or the Dept of Transportation for the roads, they should simply increase the existing gasoline/diesel tax and let the paddlers/rowers/ small sailors live free.

Putting a motor on a small boat also changes its status for insurance purposes ....... it becomes a motor vehicle.....just like a snowmobile or an atv.

[noreast]

FLL, where do you get these emoji's? I've got to get better on the computer. But on the subject, Being libertarian minded I'm usually against everything, but I wouldn't mind paying double registration if it went directly to more enforcement on the lake.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by noreast

FLL, where do you get these emoji's? I've got to get better on the computer. But on the subject, Being libertarian minded I'm usually against everything, but I wouldn't mind paying double registration if it went directly to more enforcement on the lake.

Might re-think your idea by taking a walk down memory lane! The MP was fine in fact operating in the black with a surplus before the state police took over in 2011. Shocking it's not realizing the "efficiencies" that were promised. In fact all we hear about is funding shortfalls. Put it back the way it was at it works fine. We don't need double registrations.

[Rusty]

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.

Your math is right on, good job!

[Rusty]

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.

My calculation with an rpm at 600 and gear ratio of 1.5 and slip at .15 and a prop pitch of 24 it will give you 4.2 mies per hour (not 7.7 as you stated).
Also your math for traveling 2000 feet is incorrect.