Lake water level

gwhite13 · 10-03-2014, 06:53 PM

the no wake summer was interesting. go slow,don't damage the waterfront property. they pay big taxes you know.

webmaster · 10-04-2014, 06:03 AM

Submerged docks at Harilla Landing, 1998:

TiltonBB · 10-04-2014, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gwhite13

the no wake summer was interesting. go slow,don't damage the waterfront property. they pay big taxes you know.

That was not the point.

The purpose of the no wake week was to keep the shorefront damage from occurring until the lake level was lowered.

Large wakes onto front lawns would have washed a lot of soil into the lake. Large wakes had the potential to damage docks and leave wood and debris floating around the lake. In some areas large wakes would deteriorate the walls that keep the shoreline in place.

Many peoples docks and boat ties are set to work at a certain lake level and the potential to damage boats that were banging against the docks at much higher levels was also a consideration.

Although it was a dissapointing week if you were on vacation (I was) it was the right call and in the best interest of everyone that uses the lake.

Protecting the shorefront benefits everyone that uses the lake, not just the property owners.

tis · 10-04-2014, 07:18 AM

Thanks for that, Camp Guy. I remember that too. It was awful. Most docks were under water, ready to lift and float away. The water was washing up along the shoreline eroding it. Low beaches were underwater with fish swimming on them. We went out in the boat a couple of times and still saw a couple of people disregarding the rule. They probably didn't even know, but where was their common sense? They had to see what they were doing to the shoreline. It was disappointing that week but it was absolutely necessary. And yes, we do pay BIG, BIG taxes. But it is not just for us that live on the lake that this was necessary.

Reilly · 10-05-2014, 05:13 AM

how many inches is the lake down now ?

dave603 · 10-05-2014, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

That was not the point.

The purpose of the no wake week was to keep the shorefront damage from occurring until the lake level was lowered.

Large wakes onto front lawns would have washed a lot of soil into the lake. Large wakes had the potential to damage docks and leave wood and debris floating around the lake. In some areas large wakes would deteriorate the walls that keep the shoreline in place.

Many peoples docks and boat ties are set to work at a certain lake level and the potential to damage boats that were banging against the docks at much higher levels was also a consideration.

Although it was a dissapointing week if you were on vacation (I was) it was the right call and in the best interest of everyone that uses the lake.

Protecting the shorefront benefits everyone that uses the lake, not just the property owners.

Not just that, but wakes when they come back into the lake bring stuff with them, most of not wanted in the water.

BroadHopper · 10-06-2014, 12:46 PM

If the Mount and her two sister ship had to travel at no wake. Or did they go about their normal speed?

Phantom · 10-06-2014, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

If the Mount and her two sister ship had to travel at no wake. Or did they go about their normal speed?

I actually think they did not go out when it got extremely high.

.

10-03-2014, 06:53 PM	#1
gwhite13 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Hanover and Moultonborough Posts: 90 Thanks: 7 Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts	lake water level the no wake summer was interesting. go slow,don't damage the waterfront property. they pay big taxes you know.

10-06-2014, 12:46 PM	#7
BroadHopper Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Laconia NH Posts: 5,619 Thanks: 3,247 Thanked 1,117 Times in 802 Posts	Can anyone remember If the Mount and her two sister ship had to travel at no wake. Or did they go about their normal speed? __________________ Someday may never be an actual day.

10-04-2014, 06:03 AM	#2
webmaster Moderator Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 2,476 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 463 Thanked 3,985 Times in 854 Posts	Submerged docks at Harilla Landing, 1998:

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to webmaster For This Useful Post:
Leoskeys (03-13-2015), pjard (10-04-2014)

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to TiltonBB For This Useful Post:
dave603 (10-05-2014), DRH (10-05-2014), jeffk (10-05-2014), LIforrelaxin (10-06-2014)

10-04-2014, 07:18 AM	#4
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,849 Thanks: 764 Thanked 1,474 Times in 1,029 Posts	Thanks for that, Camp Guy. I remember that too. It was awful. Most docks were under water, ready to lift and float away. The water was washing up along the shoreline eroding it. Low beaches were underwater with fish swimming on them. We went out in the boat a couple of times and still saw a couple of people disregarding the rule. They probably didn't even know, but where was their common sense? They had to see what they were doing to the shoreline. It was disappointing that week but it was absolutely necessary. And yes, we do pay BIG, BIG taxes. But it is not just for us that live on the lake that this was necessary.

10-05-2014, 05:13 AM	#5
Reilly Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 191 Thanks: 695 Thanked 56 Times in 40 Posts	how many inches is the lake down now ?