Cabin Cruiser Operators - "WAKE UP!...no, WAKE DOWN"!

[lakershaker]

I have to agree that the cabin cruisers are much more of a problem to the average boater than the GFs. On Rattlesnake this past Sunday, the wind had picked up and there were whitecaps b/w Rattlesnake and Sleepers. Our boats were riding fine at the dock until a big crusier went by about 3/4 of a mile away, and eventually the large wake hit the shore and pounded the boats into the dock causing damage to both the dock and the boats. In this case, there was no law broken as the boat was well off the shore, but the wake traveled forever, and even with the wind generated waves wasn't diminished by the time it came ashore.

Another time last summer, our 23' bow rider was swamped at no wake speed as a big cruiser didn't slow down past LT-2. This seemed much more due to operator disinterest in others around him.

Unfortunately, while these bigger boats have a much larger impact to their surroundings, many of the owners don't have an equal amount of regard for the effect on others...

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by lakershaker

I have to agree that the cabin cruisers are much more of a problem to the average boater than the GFs. On Rattlesnake this past Sunday, the wind had picked up and there were whitecaps b/w Rattlesnake and Sleepers. Our boats were riding fine at the dock until a big crusier went by about 3/4 of a mile away, and eventually the large wake hit the shore and pounded the boats into the dock causing damage to both the dock and the boats. In this case, there was no law broken as the boat was well off the shore, but the wake traveled forever, and even with the wind generated waves wasn't diminished by the time it came ashore.

Another time last summer, our 23' bow rider was swamped at no wake speed as a big cruiser didn't slow down past LT-2. This seemed much more due to operator disinterest in others around him.

Unfortunately, while these bigger boats have a much larger impact to their surroundings, many of the owners don't have an equal amount of regard for the effect on others...

There may have been no law broken per se, but a vessel (operator) is responsible for its wake and any damage done to another's property by this wake. I'll bet at least 90% of these Cabin Cruiser operators have no idea of this rule.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

There may have been no law broken per se, but a vessel (operator) is responsible for its wake and any damage done to another's property by this wake. I'll bet at least 90% of these Cabin Cruiser operators have no idea of this rule.

I think this topic has been discussed before and the conclusion was that boaters are not responsible for shoreline damage. If they are, I'd like to put in a claim for a yard of topsoil to replace what was removed by wake.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

I think this topic has been discussed before and the conclusion was that boaters are not responsible for shoreline damage. If they are, I'd like to put in a claim for a yard of topsoil to replace what was removed by wake.

I agree- they are not held responsible for shoreline damage or erosion caused by wakes. However, they are responsible for damage to physical property such as boats and docks, as well as if their wakes cause another boat to capsize. Where is the accountability?

[SweetCraft]

Seapilot,

Thank you for bringing up this issue. Dave R I hate to say that you are incorrect on this issue. Come see the waves that hit our place on Sat/Sun afternoon's. We recently had a wave from one of these boats that was 4-5 feet in height and not only swamped one of our boats but came half way into the yard flooding it. Once a small child of one our friends was knocked down on the shore line cutting her lip and chipping her tooth due to one of these beasts and its HUGE wake. Clearly these boats cause tons of erosion as well as being a safety hazard. DES needs to address it.
As for the damage/liability issue. These "operators" are liable and they are indeed responsible for any damage resulting from their wakes. Even beyond 150 feet. I checked with Marine Patrol. Chasing it and proving it however can be another matter. I am always amazed at how utterly clueless these cabin cruiser operators are. They either have absolutely no idea the utter chaos their wakes can cause with other boaters and those onshore or they don't care? The Mt. Washington goes by all the time and the wake is almost negligible ? Is it just when it is "planing up " so to speak? Not sure of that one.
Lets write to our legislators and let them know that the real issue isn't speed or GFast's but these large cabin cruisers , their draft and the resulting wakes.

[wildwoodfam]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

I think this topic has been discussed before and the conclusion was that boaters are not responsible for shoreline damage. If they are, I'd like to put in a claim for a yard of topsoil to replace what was removed by wake.

You are responsible for damage caused by your boat's wake: The Navigation Rules make it quite clear that the operator of a vessel is responsible for any damage caused by the wake their vessel produces. This not only includes damage caused to other vessels, but to people, property (such as docks) and the environment as well. Use courtesy and common sense when approaching other vessels and keep you wake to a minimum.

Problem is - you have to witness the action, take down the bow numbers and then prove that the vessel did the damage.

Which HAS BEEN DONE - friends who had been having a lot of trouble with a specific neighbor, one with a large crusier. This neighbor would come into shore on plane and cut his engines - thus creating this enormous wash that would cut under the boat giving it a push to the dock, BUT continuing onto crash on the shore line....removing items from their docks, and beach and eroding about 2 feet of their shoreline in one season!! They set up a video camera - waited patiently then filmed the boat coming in from a Sunday cruise - caught the entire action of the wash coming ashore - went to their attorney - who contacted the marine patrol, local police, DES, and the neighbor (who referred them to their attorney). Long story LONGER - the neighbor was made to pay for damages to the dock and shorline - was fined by DES and ever since have been VERY courteous boaters (at least when putting into dock!)

[Seaplane Pilot]

I'm glad to see others chiming in on this subject and that it's not just me with these experiences. I have my video and still cameras handy at all times to document these situations with the big boat wakes. I had not even brought up the fact that these waves can cause serious personal injury to people and pets, should they be caught off-guard. Thanks to the others that brought this up in other posts. As I've said a million times before, a lot of these cabin cruisers are far more dangerous and destructive than the fast boats will ever be. However, I've yet to see any attention paid to the problem by the special interest groups or media. That's about to change - wait and see.

[Onshore]

Several of you have commented that DES does not care about the problems of property owners and the DES is only concerned with surface run-off and not with erosion resulting from boat wakes. Neither of these statements is true. DES has been given the authority to control that activities that occur on the land adjacent to and under surface waters in order to prevent erosion, regardless of the cause, and protect water quality. DES has never been given the authority to regulate boating activities. That authority lies solely with the Dept of Safety. A large part of the rationale behind the movement to place greater protections on shoreline cover is that the vegetation will help property withstand the ever increasing boatwakes. The thicker the root systems the better. Woody stemmed shrub root systems are more dense than those of trees and for that reason are of great value at the waters edge.

In short it comes down to trying to do the best you can with what you have. DES has the ability to control what individuals cut, plant, or build in the shoreland so that is where they focus their attention.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by shore things

Several of you have commented that DES does not care about the problems of property owners and the DES is only concerned with surface run-off and not with erosion resulting from boat wakes.

I think it was just me, actually. My point was not to condone big wakes, I was trying to point out that following the DES guidelines makes the shore more able to handle big wakes. Also, to point out that the DES does not mind one bit that thier recommendations might mess up your view or beach.

I think the laws that make captains liable for wake damage ought to be enforced. There's no need for giant wakes on the lake.

[Bear Islander]

The solution is simple.... limits. This lake is not the ocean. There is a size boat that is to large for a given lake. We can argue about what that size is, but there are boats that are to big for this lake.

You can do it with horsepower limits, displacement limits or whatever works best. The Mount has a large wake but it only goes by once or twice a day.

We need to take a step back from the bigger, faster, louder, more pollution direction we are going in.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The solution is simple.... limits. This lake is not the ocean. There is a size boat that is to large for a given lake. We can argue about what that size is, but there are boats that are to big for this lake.

You can do it with horsepower limits, displacement limits or whatever works best. The Mount has a large wake but it only goes by once or twice a day.

We need to take a step back from the bigger, faster, louder, more pollution direction we are going in.

The Mount operates 7 days a week.

Most cabin cruisers operate during the weekend - Saturday and Sunday.

That's two days a week compared to the Mount's seven days a week.

That makes the Mount the worst offender of the big boats on the Lake.

Be careful of your wishes. The Mount, Sophie, and Doris may soon be banned from travel on the Lake, as a result.

Then, again, codeman 671 could deliver your mail with his pontoon boat.

[jrc]

Here is a thread two years ago regarding making a wake on Winnipesaukee.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=1794

Nothing has really changed since then.

If the DES really wanted to make a positive impact on water quality and the environment, the first thing they would do is ban two-stroke outboards. Every drop of oil mixed in the fuel ends up in the water or the air. Everytime one goes by there's a cloud of smoke and an oil slick.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by jrc

Here is a thread two years ago regarding making a wake on Winnipesaukee.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=1794

Nothing has really changed since then.

If the DES really wanted to make a positive impact on water quality and the environment, the first thing they would do is ban two-stroke outboards. Every drop of oil mixed in the fuel ends up in the water or the air. Everytime one goes by there's a cloud of smoke and an oil slick.

I believe this to be untrue. Can you post a link to back up your claim?

[Gatto Nero]

I don't know about "every drop" but it's not hard to find lots of information about how bad 2 strokes are for the environment. Here are just the top few from a Google search. Number 2 on the list was from our own DES.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/science/sandemay00/article1_e.html

http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/ard/ard-31.htm

http://www.wavelengthmagazine.com/1997/am97two.php

[jrc]

First of all, I know that there are new super clean two-strokes around, but I'm talking about the old tried and true engines. Cheap, reliable, easy to fix, last forever and dirty as hell.

"Every drop of oil mixed in the fuel ends up in the water or the air"

Well this statement is common sense, you mix gas and oil, then put it in the gas tank. When you are done riding it's gone, where did it go? Either in the air or the water. Some of it is burned and some of it is still unburned. Here are some links:

http://www.bluewaternetwork.org/repo...missionbay.pdf
http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/ard/ard-31.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in509964.shtml

"Everytime one goes by there's a cloud of smoke and an oil slick"

This statement is my observation but I'm not alone:

http://www.ec.gc.ca/science/sandemay00/article1_e.html
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/...sti_id=6793672

I still miss my old two-stroke dirt bike, but you have to move on.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Operation of Boats
Section 270:29-a
270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats. – Any person who shall operate a power boat upon any waters of the state in a careless and negligent manner or so that the lives and safety of the public are endangered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Source. 1981, 353:12, eff. Aug. 22, 1981.

Seems to me that these huge waves are endangering the lives and safety of the public.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

Sounds like some of you could substitute posts from last year with "GFLB" and insert "cruiser" this year. As I and others have said many times, its the operator not the boat. The last few years all the performance boats were lumped together, this year's target seems to be cruisers. Lets target ignorant, irresponsible boaters of all types of crafts and focus on the real issue. Just curious how many of you are members of any of the various organizations around the lakes region that promote boating safety (PM me and I'll give you a list). I prefer to donate my time to promote safety rather than complain. I remember the Black Panthers from the 60s and 70s; "You're either part of the problem or part of the solution".

BTW, from my observations the Dorris E and Sophie C throw some of the biggest wakes, but I forgot, they're nostalgic. Has anyone written to Mount Washington Cruises? (I haven't because it doesn't bother me). Summer and life are just to short.

Off my soapbox, over and out

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Paugus Bay Resident

Sounds like some of you could substitute posts from last year with "GFLB" and insert "cruiser" this year. As I and others have said many times, its the operator not the boat. The last few years all the performance boats were lumped together, this year's target seems to be cruisers. Lets target ignorant, irresponsible boaters of all types of crafts and focus on the real issue. Just curious how many of you are members of any of the various organizations around the lakes region that promote boating safety (PM me and I'll give you a list). I prefer to donate my time to promote safety rather than complain. I remember the Black Panthers from the 60s and 70s; "You're either part of the problem or part of the solution".

BTW, from my observations the Dorris E and Sophie C throw some of the biggest wakes, but I forgot, they're nostalgic. Has anyone written to Mount Washington Cruises? (I haven't because it doesn't bother me). Summer and life are just to short.

Off my soapbox, over and out

You are absolutely correct - it's the operator, not the boat. Thanks for the reminder. SP

[SweetCraft]

Unfortunately it is more than just the operator. These deep hull , heavy cabin cruisers 30 plus feet are just too big for this lake and displace too much water getting up and off plane even when properly operated. Thats the bottomline unfortunately. You wouldn't have a certain size boat in your bath tub.... there just too big. We will need to limit the size and number soon. Its coming. Sorry for the bad news.

[Gatto Nero]

In the case of the Manatu that I mentioned above I really don't think it has much to do with the operator. That boat has a displacement hull so it's never going to plane out, no matter what the captain does, so it's always going to leave a huge wake at cruising speed. For the record, I'd don't much care about the size of the wakes as they don't cause me any problems. Now if someone would please get the wind to ease up............

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by GWC...

Then, again, codeman 671 could deliver your mail with his pontoon boat.

Where the heck did that come from??? I wasn't even involved in this topic...