What is a wake?

[Pontoon Goon]

I am wondering what peoples feelings are in regard to the proposed no wake zone in Weirs Bay being extended out to the #1 marker ? Alright I may be the one who proposed it and that was only to my wife but I think the idea has merit. That has got to be by far the most dangerous area on the lake. With boats funneling into the channel hard on a busy W/E, boats ignoring the 150 and coming out of the channel hard and not even taking into account boat traffic for the Weirs, it is a disaster in waiting. By extending the no wake it would give vessels the proper room to disperse and reduce the huge swells that create danger for smaller boats. The no wake zone was extended in Meredith a few years ago and I for one thinks it is working out great.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Pontoon Goon

I am wondering what peoples feelings are in regard to the proposed no wake zone in Weirs Bay being extended out to the #1 marker ? Alright I may be the one who proposed it and that was only to my wife but I think the idea has merit. That has got to be by far the most dangerous area on the lake. With boats funneling into the channel hard on a busy W/E, boats ignoring the 150 and coming out of the channel hard and not even taking into account boat traffic for the Weirs, it is a disaster in waiting. By extending the no wake it would give vessels the proper room to disperse and reduce the huge swells that create danger for smaller boats. The no wake zone was extended in Meredith a few years ago and I for one thinks it is working out great.

I think it has some merit, as long as it angles from the peir toward #1, therefore allowing those that are headed toward Meredith to get moving sooner. That would encourage folks to spread out when leaving the Weirs channel, rather than making a beeline for Eagle Island, much the same way the NWZ at Bear Island works. It would also encourage people to go around the outside of Eagle Island rather than between it and Governor's. I have to confess, I hate the Meredith NWZ and think it's way too big.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Pontoon Goon

I am wondering what peoples feelings are in regard to the proposed no wake zone in Weirs Bay being extended out to the #1 marker ? Alright I may be the one who proposed it and that was only to my wife but I think the idea has merit. That has got to be by far the most dangerous area on the lake. With boats funneling into the channel hard on a busy W/E, boats ignoring the 150 and coming out of the channel hard and not even taking into account boat traffic for the Weirs, it is a disaster in waiting. By extending the no wake it would give vessels the proper room to disperse and reduce the huge swells that create danger for smaller boats. The no wake zone was extended in Meredith a few years ago and I for one thinks it is working out great.

I think your idea has merit but now with all the new laws that we can not speak of and the 150 foot laws how many more do we need to impose. Most people who are out there causing the problems are not adhering to current rules. So pesonally I don't think adding more rules and regulations is the answer. I actually had proposed an idea similar to this a couple years back before this whole mess. I thought that if we could have limits in the bays whether it be no wakes or others, where the congestion is, it would satisfy both sides. But at this point I think it would be redundancy. PS. not trying to stir anything up here.

[Pontoon Goon]

Originally Posted by ODCACTIVE

I think your idea has merit but now with all the new laws that we can not speak of and the 150 foot laws how many more do we need to impose

You're right, I think we are over regulated as it is. But what I would like to impose is common sense. Dave R. suggested angling from the docks towards the #1 marker, that makes great sense. I'm also not trying to stir the pot, this has nothing to do with speed limits, but simply safety in a very congested area.

[Channel Pirate]

A wake is the dissplacment of water behind your boat. A PWC leaves a bigger wake than a 32' baha under headway speed going north up the WB channel. Some people are just inexperienced or more aggressive and arrogant about thier actions and now we have a speed limit on the whole lake.
Chances are if someone is on a dock yelling at you to slow down in a "no wake" zone, the ripples behind your boat could be smaller and thier boat is smashing against the dock it is tied to and your wake is causing this to happen, not becase they don't have a life.

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Originally Posted by Pontoon Goon

I am wondering what peoples feelings are in regard to the proposed no wake zone in Weirs Bay being extended out to the #1 marker ? Alright I may be the one who proposed it and that was only to my wife but I think the idea has merit. That has got to be by far the most dangerous area on the lake. With boats funneling into the channel hard on a busy W/E, boats ignoring the 150 and coming out of the channel hard and not even taking into account boat traffic for the Weirs, it is a disaster in waiting. By extending the no wake it would give vessels the proper room to disperse and reduce the huge swells that create danger for smaller boats. The no wake zone was extended in Meredith a few years ago and I for one thinks it is working out great.

Personally, I think that would be too far out but I suppose it would also depend on where the other end of that imaginary line would be. Like you said, you would have boats funnelling in and out of a channel that's what, 50-75 ft wide? Somehow, I just see that as getting more congested, not less. It's not like the NWZ in Meredith Bay; that one I don't mind as much although I think they could move that line 100-200 ft closer to the public docks and achieve the same results.

Dave R mentioned getting boats to go around the outside of Eagle Island instead of between it and Governor's Island which I wouldn't mind doing except that it's a really w-i-d-e berth around Eagle in order to properly go around the 3 black spars (or is it 4, I don't have a chart in front of me) marking the ledge underwater. I'm sure more people would use that route if it weren't for that.

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

P.S. not trying to stir anything up here.

You're no fun!!

Originally Posted by Pontoon Goon

You're right, I think we are over regulated as it is. But what I would like to impose is common sense. Dave R. suggested angling from the docks towards the #1 marker, that makes great sense. I'm also not trying to stir the pot, this has nothing to do with speed limits, but simply safety in a very congested area.

You CANNOT legislate common sense or courtesy!! That was one of the biggest reasons mentioned by those pushing for the speed limit. You either have, and know how to use, common sense and courtesy or you don't. Unfortunately, too many boaters on the lake either don't have it and/or refuse to use it and we now have a speed limit to contend with for 2 (or more) years!! We do NOT need another law, just ENFORCE the laws we already have!!

[OCDACTIVE]

[QUOTE We do NOT need another law, just ENFORCE the laws we already have!! [/QUOTE]

Yup... That ship sailed A LONG TIME AGO!

[Pontoon Goon]

Nobody is advocating a new law here. What I am talking about is one specific spot that really is dangerous. By extending the NWZ out fifty yards or so safety would increase tenfold and it would help with erosion.(whole new issue).