No Wake Again ?

[sum-r breeze]

Anyone hear any buzz about the lake level.....I hear the lake is a foot over full pond. It rained all day today and will again before the weekend. I'm not trying to start any panic , but I remember what happened the last time .
Any thoughts? Does anyone have the link to Bizers real time lake level site?

[Evenstar]

I think this is the link you want: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nh/nwis/uv...te_no=01080000

[GWC...]

Did you request Bizer's lake level?

[sum-r breeze]

Thanks for the info. From the graph, the Lake is only 4" above full pond.
So much for my "super reliable" informant. I'll be sure to take his opinion with a grain of salt!

[Lakegeezer]

There have been only four other times since 1982 that the lake has been this high (4.73), according to Bizer's chart. There is rain forecast on and off from now until next Monday. Erosion is already happening along the shoreline - even with the wind. A no-wake declaration until the lake gets back below 4.6 would protect the shoreline. The law (that is never enforced) states that boaters are responsible for the damage caused by their wakes, yet any wake when the lake is this high is causing property damage. Even if no-wake cannot be required, the state should issue a request or advisory, so that boaters can choose if they want to participate in eroding the shoreline during this episodic event. Trolling for salmon should be OK.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

Trolling for salmon should be OK.

I hope going to and from ones island home is OK as well.

[spotsink]

Data posted on Bizer's Lake Level page today shows the lake 0.6 feet above the normal level for this time of year or a little over 7 inches... it also shows the output at the Lakeport dam is almost three times what it was last week yet the lake level is still rising.

It would appear that the dam operators are doing their best to maintain the level but "Mother Nature" is really testing their ability to do so...

[Silver Duck]

lg

I've been hunting for that law, and have searched the MP and N.H. Legislature websites without success. Could you provide a reference to the specific statute?

Thanks,

Silver Duck

[Paugus Bay Resident]

I just went through CHAPTER Saf-C 400 WATERCRAFT SAFETY RULES and couldn't find any specifics either.

[Mee-n-Mac]

... but I'm not sure if it's staying there or heading out to the Broads. I'm kidding of course but the water was lapping at the floor boards today. Still it's been worse and the last forecast I saw was for minimally more rain this week. We drove around a portion of Winnisquam yesterday and there was flooding and sand bags in evidence. I don't want to hear anyone use the D-word this summer !

ps - Has that stream past UTS's house been reclassified to a river by now ? Has he opened up a white water kayaking park ? Has "Thomasina" flown the coop for a drier clime, Panama perhaps ? Inquiring minds want to know

[kchace]

I have always heard that you were responsible for your wake - regardless of wake size. (My father was the first person to tell me this)

A quick check online found multiple sources that indicate this. Here's just a couple:

http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknow...ting/6_1_a.htm

http://www.boatwashington.org/watching_your_wake.htm

[upthesaukee]

M-n-M ---- thanks, I needed a smile after work today!!!! The stream actually is no where near where it was a couple of weeks ago. It has a higher flow rate than normal, but not as high as early April. No whitewater Kayak park as yet...Pepper says she doesn't have the time to open Waldo Pepper East . Probably has something to do with location...location...location. Like we stood out in our road for about 15 minutes the other night talking to a neighbor and never had to move because of the traffic...there was none! And McDude would want to put "training pontoons" on his kayak. And Thomasina has finally moved back into the woods, higher up the mountain according to my across the street neighbor. My erstwhile birdfeeder stand got bent over like a pretzel a week or so ago by a bear, but I showed him that I too could bend wrought iron and he better not come around again. And he hasn't. Of course I haven't put out the feeders again (they were actually empty but the bear didn't know that until he bent the darned thing over).

Ooops...heard a noise out back in the stream, M-n-M and I think I caught Mcdude going downstream. He was going so fast, I barely had time to snap a picture

[mcdude]

The PFD and helmet did not help too much.. ..a slight concussion and some broken bones.( ) Luckily I did NOT crash into Pepper or Thomasina....or, heaven forbid, the BEAR! Cards and flowers may be sent to Huggins Hospital

[Silver Duck]

Kchase

Thanks for the reply! But, I'm looking for the specific N.H. statute, which is the only thing that matters on Lake Winnipesaukee. One of the examples you posted a link to was a generic from Boatsafe, and the other was Oregon law.

Silver Duck

[Skip]

Hi Silver duck,

I think we both know you are waiting in vain, there is no specific statute referencing wake damage directly. However, if intent can be shown, a charge of reckless operation should apply:

TITLE XXII
NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY
CHAPTER 270
SUPERVISION OF NAVIGATION; REGISTRATION OF BOATS AND MOTORS; COMMON CARRIERS BY WATER
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.

Since this charge is a misdemenanor, intent & culpable state of mind have to be proven by the prosecutor.

If the damage is strictly property related, civil damages can always be pursued in Court.

However, as I posted elsewhere, this month's issue of BoatUS Seaworthy magazine shows that common sense applies to both parties. In a case cited, a large ship producing a large wake was not liable for damages to an anchored vessel because the court felt that the anchored vessel did not take in to proper consideration its location to a known shipping lane.

Once you get in Court, all bets are off!

Hope this helps,

Skip

[Silver Duck]

Hi Skip

I was kind'o hoping that I was wrong and somebody knew of a specific statute, but if you don't then I've gotta figure that nobody does, and it doesn't exist!

Actually, IMHO, the concept of mutual common sense is the key to everybody staying safe out there.

Silver Duck

[kchace]

SIlver Duck - I figured you were looking for a specific statute and I looked for one - but of course didn't find one. What I *did* find was that some states DO have specific statutes to that effect and some (like NH) don't.

However, in a society like ours where people are held liable for things like coffee that is too hot or ladders that aren't marked that its dangerous to do this or that on them - that if I ride by a dock and my wake causes somebody's toddler to fall in or get caught between the dock and boat - I can't imagine they wouldn't come after me to hold me responsible. Right or wrong, that's something I can do without!

Ken