Meredith NWZ Petition / Hearing

[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!