New Bill Regarding Wake Surfing?

[root1]

Mr. Tummyman
Thankyou for your time & effort in posting the wakeboarding proposal. They all sound like reasonable rules. Sadly, it does not address a requirement for wakeboats to be 'ballasted' only when 'waking' a skier. I don't have a problem with wakeboating 'proper'. But, I do have a problem with boats going to/from their fun with ballasted boats!; if you can follow what I'm very awkwardly trying to describe.
J

[WinnisquamZ]

Originally Posted by root1

Mr. Tummyman
Thankyou for your time & effort in posting the wakeboarding proposal. They all sound like reasonable rules. Sadly, it does not address a requirement for wakeboats to be 'ballasted' only when 'waking' a skier. I don't have a problem with wakeboating 'proper'. But, I do have a problem with boats going to/from their fun with ballasted boats!; if you can follow what I'm very awkwardly trying to describe.
J

That is one rule that could be enforced.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[DickR]

Originally Posted by root1

... Sadly, it does not address a requirement for wakeboats to be 'ballasted' only when 'waking' a skier. I don't have a problem with wakeboating 'proper'. But, I do have a problem with boats going to/from their fun with ballasted boats!; if you can follow what I'm very awkwardly trying to describe.
J

This could be a matter of ignorance, arrogance, indifference, or all three. I was curious as to how long adding or unloading ballast water might typically take, so I did a bit of googling. Here is but one reference of the subject: https://wayneswords.net/threads/surf...en.8314/page-4. The impact of these boats on shorelines and enjoyment of the lake by others is not just on Winnipesaukee.

There can be built-in tanks, filled and emptied by pump, and hard ballast bags (eg. bag filled with steel shot). Many boats apparently are simply built to be heavy and carry a full complement of people and gear. The weight and shape of many of these make a big wake even without filling their ballast tanks. As to fill or drain time, the numbers I saw in my brief search are on the order of 4-10 minutes each way. I can imagine that adding 20 minutes of "down time" to an outing would be too much for the patience of some of these operators.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by DickR

This could be a matter of ignorance, arrogance, indifference, or all three. I was curious as to how long adding or unloading ballast water might typically take, so I did a bit of googling. Here is but one reference of the subject: https://wayneswords.net/threads/surf...en.8314/page-4. The impact of these boats on shorelines and enjoyment of the lake by others is not just on Winnipesaukee.

There can be built-in tanks, filled and emptied by pump, and hard ballast bags (eg. bag filled with steel shot). Many boats apparently are simply built to be heavy and carry a full complement of people and gear. The weight and shape of many of these make a big wake even without filling their ballast tanks. As to fill or drain time, the numbers I saw in my brief search are on the order of 4-10 minutes each way. I can imagine that adding 20 minutes of "down time" to an outing would be too much for the patience of some of these operators.

My boat has 3 tanks and takes 6-7 minutes to fill. I start it when leaving the dock (at idle) and by the time I motor out into the open it is done. Same process to empty. We only run ballasted out in the broads.

[tis]

I watched the hearing for SB 431 which is the 200' rule and it seemed to me that the consensus was it wasn't enough so they will look at it some more. One thing one of the members said was that it was inconsquential to Winnipesaukee because it is so big which is not true at all because of the coves and harbors. Some of these areas are not as wide as the smaller lakes.

[John Mercier]

Maybe a couple reasons... PWC long ago went to 300 feet. So for larger craft with more displacement, they probably expect at least that.

Inconsequential could also mean that due to the size of Winnipesuakee, it left plenty of area to operate without even coming close to shore. Even the 500 foot proposal shows plenty of open area.

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Maybe a couple reasons... PWC long ago went to 300 feet. So for larger craft with more displacement, they probably expect at least that.

Inconsequential could also mean that due to the size of Winnipesuakee, it left plenty of area to operate without even coming close to shore. Even the 500 foot proposal shows plenty of open area.

I'm not sure that's the exact word he used, but you make a good point.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Maybe a couple reasons... PWC long ago went to 300 feet. So for larger craft with more displacement, they probably expect at least that.

Inconsequential could also mean that due to the size of Winnipesuakee, it left plenty of area to operate without even coming close to shore. Even the 500 foot proposal shows plenty of open area.

300’? It’s 150’ distance for “ski craft” from shore or other vessels unless in tight bays or coves under a defined size. Now keep in mind that a ski craft is also defined as 2 person, most pwc built these days are 3 seaters and this falls under the definition of a boat. In this case, it’s 150’ regardless.

They are pushing wakeboats to 500’. While 500’ still allows plenty of area on Winnipesaukee, it adversely pushes those partaking in wakesports into busier, rougher waters.

[John Mercier]

The DOS NH Boating Laws and Responsibilities Handbook states on Page 48...

Requirements Specific to Ski Craft.

It is illegal to operate a ''ski craft'' within a cove (a bay or inlet that does not exceed 1000 feet at its widest point) or within 300 feet of shore unless the ''ski craft'' is proceeding at headway speed directly to an area where ''ski craft'' operation is permitted.

So unless it is an old handbook on-line... the regulation is 300 feet from the shore. It is copyrighted 2022.

Moving all vessels to the 300 foot rule may be what is being considered.

Lots of operators do not own lakefront... so changing the course of the lake quality would either be placing some restraints on them; or just focusing on shore front owners and placing severe restraints on them. Not exactly sure that is fair to the shore front owner.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

The DOS NH Boating Laws and Responsibilities Handbook states on Page 48...

Requirements Specific to Ski Craft.

It is illegal to operate a ''ski craft'' within a cove (a bay or inlet that does not exceed 1000 feet at its widest point) or within 300 feet of shore unless the ''ski craft'' is proceeding at headway speed directly to an area where ''ski craft'' operation is permitted.

So unless it is an old handbook on-line... the regulation is 300 feet from the shore. It is copyrighted 2022.

Moving all vessels to the 300 foot rule may be what is being considered.

Lots of operators do not own lakefront... so changing the course of the lake quality would either be placing some restraints on them; or just focusing on shore front owners and placing severe restraints on them. Not exactly sure that is fair to the shore front owner.

Exactly what I said John…”Ski craft” and “pwc” are different by definition…There are few “ski craft” produced/sold, an overwhelming majority are 3 seaters. Ski craft have the 300’ limitation only.

Are you even a boater or just a guy that likes to google?

[John Mercier]

I used to boat... and ride a Yamaha Waverunner.

The advent of the three-seater allowed more vessels to operate closer to shore.

Since they now are seeing bigger problems with nutrient erosion into the lakes... they want to stop that erosion.

So they are probably going to seek a reset...
Making the 300' rule on the ''ski craft'' doesn't seem to settle the problem from the lake side.

The other option is to go hard against the shore line owners... something that doesn't seem quite fair.

They obviously want to lower the incidence of blooms, more importantly keep them from expanding. Since the quality of the lakes effects all owners (residents), the means to achieve that in a balanced manner is what they are seeking.

I just don't think the precedent they set with defining a specific vessel (ski craft) and placing special restrictions on them is something they should keep doing. Set one standard for everyone.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

I used to boat... and ride a Yamaha Waverunner.

The advent of the three-seater allowed more vessels to operate closer to shore.
Since they now are seeing bigger problems with nutrient erosion into the lakes... they want to stop that erosion.
So they are probably going to seek a reset...Making the 300' rule on the ''ski craft'' doesn't seem to settle the problem from the lake side. The other option is to go hard against the shore line owners... something that doesn't seem quite fair. They obviously want to lower the incidence of blooms, more importantly keep them from expanding. Since the quality of the lakes effects all owners (residents), the means to achieve that in a balanced manner is what they are seeking. I just don't think the precedent they set with defining a specific vessel (ski craft) and placing special restrictions on them is something they should keep doing. Set one standard for everyone.

The shoreline suffers most in Spring.

The dam operators have the lake overfull for today's over-sized boats.

Against these wakes' erosion, I need a tight row of bollards; then maybe, a thick wall of large boulders to break up their wakes' powerful thrusting.

Is this allowed?

No...

[fatlazyless]

...... here's a waterfront erosion control fix from the big wakes for the waterfront home owner ........ www.slingbag.net/erosion.html ......

[camp guy]

I am sure people will think I've been smokin' too much wacky-tobaccy, but I have a really crazy idea: If boat operators exercised common sense and common courtesy, 99.9% of all these problems would vanish.

[tis]

Originally Posted by camp guy

I am sure people will think I've been smokin' too much wacky-tobaccy, but I have a really crazy idea: If boat operators exercised common sense and common courtesy, 99.9% of all these problems would vanish.

So true! I hate new rules and regulations, but unfortunately people don't have common sense and courtesy. But then what would the legislators do?

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by camp guy

I am sure people will think I've been smokin' too much wacky-tobaccy, but I have a really crazy idea: If boat operators exercised common sense and common courtesy, 99.9% of all these problems would vanish.

If love and kindness was practiced by everyone, we would never need rules and regulations, or police and prisons.
What planet might that be practiced on?