No Wake Zone permit

[ApS]

Originally Posted by ralbaneze

My family has been here since 1950. My concerns are that this small cove cannot handle high speed boats. We have already lost about two feet of shoreline due to orrision. Just look at my options. It is a great place to be and we all want to keep it that way.

Include some photographs in your request. This photo is from Winter Harbor, which gets mobbed by wake-surfers, tubers, sky-skiers, waterskiers—but worst are the rubberneckers who view the shoreline at highly-erosive speeds in boats oversized for Lake Winnipesaukee.

[caloway]

Originally Posted by Phantom

I had grabbed my soda & popcorn ...... was determined to sit back and laugh my way through as this thread surely had all the markings of deteriorating rapidly

Then the red highlighted portion above caught my eye ....... ApS -- Seriously ?



I could totally understand if one day Don just threw up his arms and said enuf ..... or "Good Bye"

.

There's nothing out there that erodes like a good wind out of the NW and the lake has managed to deal with it for eons.

That having been said, I'll be submitting a no wake petition for the entire lake for anything over 38 feet, unless it has captain's call and is traveling greater than 45 mph.

[Greene's Basin Girl]

A number of years ago we had some newbies who wanted to extend one of the no wake zones in our area. A number of us attended the hearing in Moultonborough and the newbies were outnumbered. The no wake zone was not extended. We live in Green's Basin. Everyone comes in to wakeboard. It can be very busy on the weekends in the summer, but I can put up with it. That is part of summer fun for those on Lake Winnipesaukee. Those looking for lake front homes definitely need to do their homework. We live near Lee's Pond. That is a great place for those who want quiet. I like quiet, but I also like boating all over the lake. Our house was built in 1935 and the 700 feet of shoreline around it is just fine. It has not seen much erosion in the 62 years that I have been there.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by caloway

There's nothing out there that erodes like a good wind out of the NW and the lake has managed to deal with it for eons.

Yes, the eons (more like 12,000 years) of natural erosion has sculpted the shoreline, but the last 100 years of human activity has made its mark. Boat wakes in many places are perpendicular (ie, NE/SW) to the more common natural direction (NW), so is eroding the shoreline in new ways. Weekend boat wake is also stirring up the bottom sediment more strongly and frequently than wind storms. This releases additional nutrients from the shallows into the water column and increases algae growth, which creates more nutrient rich muck on the bottom. A vicious cycle.

There are good reasons for no-wake restrictions on much more of the lake, but recreation value out-weighs the ecological concerns. Water quality in most parts of the lake will probably be acceptable for at least the rest of this century and probably most of the next.

If the state changes the rules for no-wake or no-rafting in one neighborhood, for fairness, it should (IMHO) redefine requirements for the whole lake. Why should one area get more privacy and erosion protection and not others?

[Rusty]

If you do submit a petition, make sure that you can answer these questions which will come up at a public meeting:

(1) THE SIZE OF THE BODY OF WATER OR PORTION THEREOF FOR WHICH RULE MAKING ACTION IS BEING CONSIDERED.

(2) THE EFFECT WHICH ADOPTING OR NOT ADOPTING THE RULE (S) WOULD HAVE UPON:
......(A) PUBLIC SAFETY.
......(B) THE MAINTENANCE OF RESIDENTIAL, RECREATIONAL AND SCENIC VALUES.
......(C) THE VARIETY OF USES OF SUCH BODY OF WATER OR PORTION THEREOF.
......(D) THE ENVIRONMENT AND WATER QUALITY.
......(E) THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES.

(3) THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE AFFECTED, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BY ADOPTING OR NOT ADOPTING THE RULE(S).

(4) THE AVAILABILITY AND PRACTICALITY OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE RULE(S).

[glennsteely]

Originally Posted by caloway

there's nothing out there that erodes like a good wind out of the nw and the lake has managed to deal with it for eons.

That having been said, i'll be submitting a no wake petition for the entire lake for anything over 38 feet, unless it has captain's call and is traveling greater than 45 mph.

too funny!!!

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by ApS

Include some photographs in your request. This photo is from Winter Harbor, which gets mobbed by wake-surfers, tubers, sky-skiers, waterskiers—but worst are the rubberneckers who view the shoreline at highly-erosive speeds in boats oversized for Lake Winnipesaukee.

A) Please confirm that your image was taken at a low lake level.

B) Tell an island resident that they can only have a 14' jon boat with a 7.5 HP motor for getting to their property on a day with 4' to 5'ers running in the Broads.

I bet my "oversized" boat puts out a flatter wake than your underpowered family bowrider.

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

A) Please confirm that your image was taken at a low lake level.

B) Tell an island resident that they can only have a 14' jon boat with a 7.5 HP motor for getting to their property on a day with 4' to 5'ers running in the Broads.

I bet my "oversized" boat puts out a flatter wake than your underpowered family bowrider.

There are leaves on the trees so presumably the lake level is near full.

[ralbaneze]

Thank you to all who posted to my request. It is very apparent that all of the people that responded to my inquiry are very passionate about the lake. I will take all of the opinions and think about it this winter. it is an amazing part of the world and we should all be grateful that we live there.

See you around lake winni!

ralbaneze

[tis]

Originally Posted by ralbaneze

Thank you to all who posted to my request. It is very apparent that all of the people that responded to my inquiry are very passionate about the lake. I will take all of the opinions and think about it this winter. it is an amazing part of the world and we should all be grateful that we live there.

See you around lake winni!

ralbaneze

After this long discussion, you still haven't told us if your area is 150 feet shore to shore. If it is, it is illegal to make a wake and you do not need a No Wake Zone. A sign will not do any more good than the fact that they are breaking the law already. (assuming it is 150 feet or less). Can you tell us if it is 150'?

[paintitredinHC]

Nearly 50 years ago, my family purchased property in a cove for a few reasons. 1.) Southern exposure/protection from the north wind 2.) Well defined boundary as kids grew up within the confines of the cove 3.) Calm water for skiing. The issue here is number 3. It's entirely possible that people bought property in Cummings Cove because it was great for skiing. By creating a no wake zone in that cove, you remove value.

I'm not an expert in the shoreline protection act, but it would make sense to me that you should be able to take additional measures to protect your land (and its value) without subtracting value from others. Several people in the busy sections of the lake have erected breakwaters to protect their beaches and docks. Your efforts might be better served submitting a request to build such a structure.

[Not to Worry]

People have a very parochial view when it comes to speed limits, NWZ, "right of way" versus stand on and give way, etc.

I boat in FL and I have a 30 MPH speed limit, no wake outside of the channel, numerous no wake or minimum wakes etc, inside the channel. We all deal with it just fine.

Winni has very few NWZ and although they can be a pain there are nothing compared to the real world of boating. Speed limits? The exist on snowmobile trails, roads, waterways, and even ski trails can take your ticket for going to fast.

The supporters of no speed limits etc., think that their rights supersede my rights.
For example I find the noise from the GFBL boats to be offensive while some are thrilled with noise. OK...but I have a right to have a limit to the noise and you have the right to make more noise than is necessary.

Noise and speed have not been eliminated but they have been regulated. Everyone did not get what they want but we all got SOME of what we want.

The vast majority of the lake is open to cruising to your hearts content without NWZ. Speed limit of 45 mph is just fine for the vast, vast majority.Things changed on the lake because that is what most wanted! Things will continue to change on the lake to make it safer, and yes less noisy. Or maybe better said Winni is just catching up to the real world.

[Cal]

One thing that never ceases to amaze me anymore about this country is how the wants of the minority out weighs the wants of the majority! And you know I speak the truth!

[Phantom]

CAL --

Sooooo true

Me thinks, It's because they make more "noise" about an issue !

(I think its called the squeaky wheel thingy)


.

[Woodsy]

It is not that a vocal minority rules for the majority.... its that the majority is usually silent and doesn't really give a crap until whatever freedom/privilege/right is taken away. But by then its too late...

I have NO problem with No Wake Zones when it comes to safety.... most (not all) on Lake Winni are there for safety concerns. Others like the NWZ at the end of Meredith Bay kind of bug me. It was placed there for economic reasons (thanks to Rusty McClear & NH Hospitality) to benefit their business. There is no reason safety wise, that NWZ has to be so large.

I have a HUGE problem with No Rafting Zones.... They take away a resource and a freedom enjoyed by the PUBLIC to benefit PRIVATE property owners. In my opinion NRZ's should be abolished!

The Speed limit is what it is... it passed, they won. But just like on the highways, people tend to ignore it somewhat when they can...

The noise laws on the books now are sufficient. They were established with input from Boat builders, State & Federal governments. I don't think you will see a change in those anytime soon. If there were to be change... the current boats would be grandfathered anyway.

Woodsy

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I have NO problem with No Wake Zones when it comes to safety.... most (not all) on Lake Winni are there for safety concerns. Others like the NWZ at the end of Meredith Bay kind of bug me. It was placed there for economic reasons (thanks to Rusty McClear & NH Hospitality) to benefit their business. There is no reason safety wise, that NWZ has to be so large.

Woodsy

Woodsy - I tend to Agree with ALL of your points made .... well stated.

As for the NWZ in Meredith Bay (which I totally agree covers an expansive & needless amount of the Bay) --- I was always of the belief that it was enacted as a result of the infamous & tragic boating incident many years back -- Cigarette boat vs. 22' Sea Ray one summer evening.



But now that you introduce the McClear element is makes all kinds of sense that they pushed for it to hold the waves & such down at the Church Landing slips and Gazebo area

.

[Not to Worry]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

It is not that a vocal minority rules for the majority.... its that the majority is usually silent and doesn't really give a crap until whatever freedom/privilege/right is taken away. But by then its too late...





Woodsy

If the forum is any example then the vocal minority, the ones yelling and screaming that their right to be loud etc, outweighs their rights. As if the GFBL crowd has a God given birthright to "live free or die". Thank God you are in the minority but your minority voices are surely the loudest!

[Phantom]

want to take a moment and proof read that Not to Worry ?


.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Not to Worry

If the forum is any example then the vocal minority, the ones yelling and screaming that their right to be loud etc, outweighs their rights. As if the GFBL crowd has a God given birthright to "live free or die". Thank God you are in the minority but your minority voices are surely the loudest!

I think you need to spend some time re-reading this forum, particularly the threads relative to noise.

Every boat on this lake meets the noise limits established through RSA. Boats that do not are subject to enforcement. You may not like the decibel level established, but your fight is in Concord, not here.

And there is no GFBL "crowd"

No worries

[Not to Worry]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

I think you need to spend some time re-reading this forum, particularly the threads relative to noise.

Every boat on this lake meets the noise limits established through RSA. Boats that do not are subject to enforcement. You may not like the decibel level established, but your fight is in Concord, not here.

And there is no GFBL "crowd"

No worries

First: it is soooooo easy to get the GFBL crowd a on their soapbox and declare their rights are superior to those who prefer less noise and less speed. I agree that the speed issue is MOOT! So no need to go there....then again I think this post started with someone complaining about speed and noise in their cove AND the only way to deal with the would be a NWZ. I too hate the NWZ...but that is life as a boater...so I deal and try and understand without getting my panties all in a twist.

Second: No, not all boats meet the noise limits but that was not my point. BTW read the last thread on all this stuff and you will find people stating how much they enjoy the noise....and that is fine....I do not and that is fine but do not bitch when MP enforces the law! I do not want to deprive people of the right to enjoy the lake as long as your "right" does not crush my right.

[HellRaZoR004]

Originally Posted by Not to Worry

First: it is soooooo easy to get the GFBL crowd a on their soapbox and declare their rights are superior to those who prefer less noise and less speed. I agree that the speed issue is MOOT! So no need to go there....then again I think this post started with someone complaining about speed and noise in their cove AND the only way to deal with the would be a NWZ. I too hate the NWZ...but that is life as a boater...so I deal and try and understand without getting my panties all in a twist.

Second: No, not all boats meet the noise limits but that was not my point. BTW read the last thread on all this stuff and you will find people stating how much they enjoy the noise....and that is fine....I do not and that is fine but do not bitch when MP enforces the law! I do not want to deprive people of the right to enjoy the lake as long as your "right" does not crush my right.

You just created your own soapbox as a non-GFBL supporter...

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Not to Worry

First: it is soooooo easy to get the GFBL crowd a on their soapbox and declare their rights are superior to those who prefer less noise and less speed. I agree that the speed issue is MOOT! So no need to go there....then again I think this post started with someone complaining about speed and noise in their cove AND the only way to deal with the would be a NWZ. I too hate the NWZ...but that is life as a boater...so I deal and try and understand without getting my panties all in a twist.

Second: No, not all boats meet the noise limits but that was not my point. BTW read the last thread on all this stuff and you will find people stating how much they enjoy the noise....and that is fine....I do not and that is fine but do not bitch when MP enforces the law! I do not want to deprive people of the right to enjoy the lake as long as your "right" does not crush my right.

You should hear my boat with its thru prop hub exhaust. So loud

Classy... "panties in a bunch" and "bitching" in one post!

[Webbsatwinni]

Originally Posted by glennsteely

thats kind of the point.....if all posts are not treated the same, so be it....that is the point exactly......don's site, don's rules....it's up to don, where he puts things.....frankly, your point means nothing. If you want your point to count for so much, start your own forum....hey, maybe i'll even join it!!

That might be fun! Until the 1st tough issue and my getting upset when someone points out my hidden positions and stances.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by ralbaneze

Thank you to all who posted to my request. It is very apparent that all of the people that responded to my inquiry are very passionate about the lake. I will take all of the opinions and think about it this winter. it is an amazing part of the world and we should all be grateful that we live there.

See you around lake winni!

ralbaneze

Thanks ralbaneze, let us know if we can be of anymore help.

[Lakeboater]

"After this long discussion, you still haven't told us if your area is 150 feet shore to shore. If it is, it is illegal to make a wake and you do not need a No Wake Zone. A sign will not do any more good than the fact that they are breaking the law already. (assuming it is 150 feet or less). Can you tell us if it is 150'?"
If an island is up to 300 feet from the mainland or another island wouldn't the area between both be a no wake zone as you passed between since you couldn't get 150' away from both of them?

[tis]

Originally Posted by Lakeboater

"After this long discussion, you still haven't told us if your area is 150 feet shore to shore. If it is, it is illegal to make a wake and you do not need a No Wake Zone. A sign will not do any more good than the fact that they are breaking the law already. (assuming it is 150 feet or less). Can you tell us if it is 150'?"
If an island is up to 300 feet from the mainland or another island wouldn't the area between both be a no wake zone as you passed between since you couldn't get 150' away from both of them?

Thank you Lakeboater. I just asked that too and would love to know the answer. I hope he answers us.

[SAMIAM]

Originally Posted by ApS

Include some photographs in your request. This photo is from Winter Harbor, which gets mobbed by wake-surfers, tubers, sky-skiers, waterskiers—but worst are the rubberneckers who view the shoreline at highly-erosive speeds in boats oversized for Lake Winnipesaukee.

Having spent a lot of time with inlaws at Winter Harbor, I'll agree that it is a beehive of activity on busy summer days, but I don't believe that the boat wakes are any more damaging than wind driven waves since WH faces due west. Many is the day I've seen 3&4 footers rolling right in off the broads with a strong west wind.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by ApS

Include some photographs in your request. This photo is from Winter Harbor, which gets mobbed by wake-surfers, tubers, sky-skiers, waterskiers—but worst are the rubberneckers who view the shoreline at highly-erosive speeds in boats oversized for Lake Winnipesaukee.

First I see shoreline like that all over this country on countless streams, rivers, lakes, and ponds.... In short this isn't shocking..... and shouldn't be supper troubling.........

Second.... APS, as usual your anger seems directed solely at two things "highly-erosive speeds in boats oversized for Lake Winnipesaukee"....

Why don't you ever speak out and stomp your feet about the wake surfers, tubers, sky-skiers, and waterskiiers????

If you are truly so concerned with your shorefront and peace and quiet, I would think you would want these gone too....

wakesurfers, tubers, skiiers, always bring with them loud music, big and repetitive wakes etc......

Am I trying to give you more ammunition, yep maybe, am I trying to stir something up here, yep maybe....

But what am I really trying to do here, is point out, that you always tell us speedboaters, how bad we are, but I never here you complain about all these other activities, which have to have just as much effect on your serenity..... or could it be that you just like to watch these other activities, so they are ok??????

[Bear Islander]

Google Earth shows the opening to the cove behind Oak Island to be about 550 feet wide. The cove opens up to about 800 feet inside.

If you take this to a public meeting consider taking along as much real evidence as you can find. As example, your opinion that loons are being disturbed in that cove is nowhere near as good as a letter from the Loon Preservation Society saying the same thing.

I was once arguing alone for a speed limit on a small NH lake. I had lots of opposition and I think I was going down in flames until I took out some 8" by 10" color glossies of offending boats. The speed limit on that lake is still in effect.

A picture says a thousand words.

[ApS]

Reading here, that Cobalt has introduced pontoon boats to its lineup is really good news, as pontoon boats leave scarcely any wake.

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

"...First I see shoreline like that all over this country on countless streams, rivers, lakes, and ponds.... In short this isn't shocking..... and shouldn't be super troubling........."

This clump of Winter Harbor trees (Maple? Northern Ash?) appears about 75 years old (each).

Seventy-five years ago, those trees could not have stayed rooted under the assault of the oversized boats that presently erode our shores.

OK—so you're not shocked.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by ApS

Reading here, that Cobalt has introduced pontoon boats to its lineup is really good news, as pontoon boats leave scarcely any wake.



This clump of Winter Harbor trees (Maple? Northern Ash?) appears about 75 years old (each).

Seventy-five years ago, those trees could not have stayed rooted under the assault of the oversized boats that presently erode our shores.

OK—so you're not shocked.

APS, I have two clumps of Oak on the shoreline in front of my place that have had no problems what so ever taking root and growing. This has happened in the last 10 years... And I am in an area that is just as busy if not busier then Winter Harbor.

Is you contention that the erosion shown in both your pictures in this thread are from erosion cause solely by boat wakes?

And once again I am not shocked by either picture... Nor will I say that boat wakes haven't contributed in some part in the erosion. But I will not allow someone to say that boat wakes are the sole factor. In both these cases, I see other contributing factors. Most evident is in the second picture, is how the natural drainage of the land flows right under the root ball.... telling me that mother nature played a factor in this situation.

There is no doubt that boat wakes have cause some issues. But so has development, and mother nature. When I see someone or group, working just as hard, to curb development along the water front, and also preaching that mother nature, is simply going to cause some erosion, they will have my support.

But I will not support a view, that boat wakes are the cause of all erosion problems.

[Just Sold]

Originally Posted by ApS

Reading here, that Cobalt has introduced pontoon boats to its lineup is really good news, as pontoon boats leave scarcely any wake.

This clump of Winter Harbor trees (Maple? Northern Ash?) appears about 75 years old (each).

Seventy-five years ago, those trees could not have stayed rooted under the assault of the oversized boats that presently erode our shores.

OK—so you're not shocked.

I do agree the erosion under the tree is quite sustantial. But, I cannot blame this on a single cause as the tree is growing right at the waterline with every type of wave action hitting its roots and from what I see it appears to be at the bottom of a incline and in the path of water runoff. The roots look to have been exposed for quite some time too. So it gets it from both sides and is lucky it lasted this long, tough tree though. I have seen this situation with tree roots exposed before on the lake so it is not a new, single or fast occurance with a single cause. This took a long time to happen.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Just Sold

I do agree the erosion under the tree is quite sustantial. But, I cannot blame this on a single cause as the tree is growing right at the waterline with every type of wave action hitting its roots and from what I see it appears to be at the bottom of a incline and in the path of water runoff. The roots look to have been exposed for quite some time too. So it gets it from both sides and is lucky it lasted this long, tough tree though. I have seen this situation with tree roots exposed before on the lake so it is not a new, single or fast occurance with a single cause. This took a long time to happen.

Come on Ken, can't you tell that those roots were exposed only by wakes from "oversized ocean racers"

[ursa minor]

I swore I'd never chime in on this after my original post figuring (like many others) that we'd end up here in the "issues" forum, however here I am...

Full disclosure, I'm opposed to adding any further no wake zones to the lake, we've got plenty now thanks (IMHO). This was only strengthened a few years ago when some "neighbors" tried to slide a new NWZ in at the Barber's Pole under less than honorable conditions (again, my opinion). I stayed out of the debate on the forum on that one. When the true abutters of the potential NWZ were notified and were able to express their opinions the State determined things were fine as they were.

It was said then and I'll repeat it now: Instead of trying to enact more restrictions, perhaps the OP could contact the Marine Patrol to enforce the existing laws. (150 foot rule for example) They camp out at Eagle Island most weekends so it's not like they're not in the general area. Maybe it's a newer family that's not familiar with our local rules. A simple conversation could greatly reduce this issue and maybe eliminate it all together.

All this said, I can also see where the OP is coming from. There are times when it would be nice if those on the lake (usually a small minority of users) had some understanding that their activities on the lake can get annoying others around them. To have the same boat / boats/ jet ski's / etc. continually passing by for a long period of time can wear on you. We deal with it at our location periodically but then again when we bought our place we knew that we'd have boat traffic on weekends.

We've got plenty of time to hash this out before the next boating season. Personally I hope we all get to see more threads like Cate's epic sailboat trip from last season as we move forward. That's the good stuff on here, we should all try to do more of that, maybe it'll be contagious!

[sum-r breeze]

Originally Posted by ApS

Include some photographs in your request. This photo is from Winter Harbor, which gets mobbed by wake-surfers, tubers, sky-skiers, waterskiers—but worst are the rubberneckers who view the shoreline at highly-erosive speeds in boats oversized for Lake Winnipesaukee.

What is a highly erosive speed? The first complaint was about GO FAST BE LOUD boats in this little cove. So which is it? The GO FAST or the rubbernecking GO SLOW boats the should be banned from this little cove? If I run my GO SLOW boat really fast does that count. If I had a go fast boat and ran it slow with the captain's call in quiet mode is that ok? The lake is a beautiful place and it should be for EVERONE to enjoy.
The Breeze
Wave 'cuz I'll be wavin' back