Cabin Cruiser Operators - "WAKE UP!...no, WAKE DOWN"!

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Dave R

How would you measure HP? Propshaft Dynamometers aren't cheap and pulling the engine to measure crankshaft HP is gonna be a real expensive proposition.

What's to stop folks from opening up a 1500HP GFBL commercial passenger business?

Have you seen the wake a 400 HP trawler can make at 13 knots? Can you imagine the speeds a twin 250 HP outboard powered tunnel hull can attain?

I think enforcing the existing laws would be vastly simpler and very effective. It's already against the law to operate any boat recklessly and to damage property with a wake. Make a very public example out of a few idiots and word will get around to most would-be offenders.

Most of the boaters on Winnipesaukee are very courteous and safe. Take a Summer weekend boat ride on the ICW or the CT River sometime if you want to see how good we have it in NH.

You may be correct, it could be that 200 or 300 hp is a better number.

Engine specifications list horsepower. And if that doesn't work there is a simple correlation to displacement. Obviously someone can modify an engine and get more horsepower than allowed. But the Marine Patrol are not stupid, you are not going to convince them that your 1500 hp GFBL is really 500 hp. If you wanted to make the law super simple you can also limit the number of cylinders. How does a maximum of 8 cylinders per boat work for you?

As to your commercial GFBL idea. If you want to get a commercial captains license, register and insure your boat commercially, have it inspected by the Dept. of Safety each year and take paying passengers... then knock yourself out.

I somebody does it I will pay to take a ride, my kids would love it.

[Woodsy]

Guys & Gals...

I was just trying to interject a little humor.... sorry if i offended

Woodsy

[Island Lover]

I like this commercial GFBL idea as well. Many years ago there was a fast laker out of Weirs Beach named Miss Winnipesaukee that took people on paid rides in an earlier version of a GFBL.

I think the cylinder idea has merit. 300 horsepower or 8 cylinders maximum is fine by me.

An exception for existing boats is fair as well.

[Dave R]

I find it odd that the original intent of the this thread was to discuss ways of reducing wake damage and somehow it's evolved into a discussion about how laws should be passed that limit HP and encourage underpowered boats that make HUGE wakes. Be careful what you wish for...

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I find it odd that the original intent of the this thread was to discuss ways of reducing wake damage and somehow it's evolved into a discussion about how laws should be passed that limit HP and encourage underpowered boats that make HUGE wakes. Be careful what you wish for...

Sorry, but no reasonable person is going to buy this lower horsepower means bigger wake thing. As I remember speed limits mean bigger wake to. Does global warming cause larger wake?

Yes, I'm sure there is a possible situation where replacing a boats engine with a smaller one will keep it from getting on plane. But that same boat would create the same large wake with a larger engine at partial power.

And do you really think anybody is going to take the big engines out of a GFBL and put in tiny ones? That I would like to see.

However if you insist this is possible then we can have a horsepower, number of cylinder AND displacement maximum.

Now dream up a way to get around that!

[Island Lover]

Why is that methods that work at hundreds or thousands of other lakes are immediate considered impossible and unworkable on Winnipesaukee?

Thousands of lakes have speed limits with little on no enforcement problems. Many NH lakes have them without problems.

Lake Tappan in Ohio has a 299 horsepower limit that works very well. I'm sure we will now hear all the differences between Lake Tappan and Lake Winnipesaukee.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Many NH lakes have them without problems.

Any idea on how many bodies in NH are actually over 1000 acres compared to how many are under? Most bodies of water in NH are too small to even hold a 25' boat regardless of horsepower. I can't seem to remember the last time I saw a 25' boat in Pine River Pond, probably because it is too small and shallow!!!

I am sure you already know this but Winnipesaukee is 6+ times the size of the next largest NH lake. I think that there is plenty of space for everyone to get along...Stop creating wake!

By the way, are you and Islander actually the same person or do you live under the same roof? You joined the same month and seem to have the same ideas...Wouldn't surprise me a bit if you were one and the same...

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Why is that methods that work at hundreds or thousands of other lakes are immediate considered impossible and unworkable on Winnipesaukee?

Thousands of lakes have speed limits with little on no enforcement problems. Many NH lakes have them without problems.

Lake Tappan in Ohio has a 299 horsepower limit that works very well. I'm sure we will now hear all the differences between Lake Tappan and Lake Winnipesaukee.

So, I got bored and looked up Tappan Lake in Ohio on the interweb. It has a surface area of 2,350 acres. Winnipesaukee has 45,000+ acres. Slight difference. HP limits on Ohio lakes are an exception, rather than the rule, BTW. Lakes substantailly smaller than Tappan Lake have no HP limit.

But to be fair, lets follow the Tappan Lake model and see where it goes for a bigger lake:

To adjust for the slight difference in lake surface area, we should take the Tappan Lake HP limit and adjust it linearly for the difference in acreage to fit Winnipesaukee. That comes to roughly 5700 HP, I suspect most could live with that. Alternatively, to try to be more like the rest of Ohio, we could look at HP limits on larger lakes in Ohio and adjust down from there. Lake Erie is pretty big and borders Ohio. It is 138 times bigger than Winnipesaukee and has no HP limit. Lets see, null divided by 138 = null. Hey, look at that, we are already compliant!

Seriously, if you like the idea of lakes with HP, displacement, and speed limits, why on earth would you have a place on Winnipesaukee? From what I hear, there's thousands of lakes with speed limits and no enforcement problems; why don't you live on one of them instead? There's one really close by and a whole state full of them just south of us...

[SweetCraft]

Unfortunately the reality of the situation will be that NH Government will need to limit the # of the boats on the lake in order to protect/maintain the quality of its valuable economic resource called Winni. The way they will do this? Either a lottery for a set # of permits as many midwestern lakes do now or limiting size/hp/displacement. You wouldn't have a 100 folks in your pool if it only held 30 would you? Sorry folks hate to rain on the parade and everyone's "freedom" but in order to protect the lake for the many and future generations (they have rights to it also) limits will need to be put in place. Its sad but we just won't do the right thing and protect it on our own.

Its coming. I will take all bets.... place your bets....... 5 years MAX.....

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by SweetCraft

Unfortunately the reality of the situation will be that NH Government will need to limit the # of the boats on the lake in order to protect/maintain the quality of its valuable economic resource called Winni. The way they will do this? Either a lottery for a set # of permits as many midwestern lakes do now or limiting size/hp/displacement. You wouldn't have a 100 folks in your pool if it only held 30 would you? Sorry folks hate to rain on the parade and everyone's "freedom" but in order to protect the lake for the many and future generations (they have rights to it also) limits will need to be put in place. Its sad but we just won't do the right thing and protect it on our own.

Its coming. I will take all bets.... place your bets....... 5 years MAX.....

Based on what I've seen, the "crowds" on the lake are diminishing. I think there's fewer boats operating on the lake, on a typical day, than there were 5 years ago. There's always room to park at the ramp where I launch, and the only crowds I see on a regular basis are around Weirs Beach. Sounds like solution in search of a problem to me. Wanna see crowds, spend a weekend on the CT River sometime. It's vastly more crowded than Winni and nearly everybody still has a good time and remains friendly.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

I agree with Dave R. Over the last few years I've definitely noticed fewer boats. Couple that with higher gas prices and I'll bet it takes care of itself. There are a lot more slips available for sale / rent than there have been in the past. If the lake gets too crowded for some, they will stop coming and the lake will be less crowded. Problem solved without a new law.

[Gavia immer]

Originally Posted by Paugus Bay Resident

I agree with Dave R. Over the last few years I've definitely noticed fewer boats. Couple that with higher gas prices and I'll bet it takes care of itself. There are a lot more slips available for sale / rent than there have been in the past. If the lake gets too crowded for some, they will stop coming and the lake will be less crowded. Problem solved without a new law.

Boats keep getting faster and bigger, who displace away the smaller displacement boats. The remaining smaller boats "buy up" to bigger displacement boats, who displace the remaining small boats, which.....

[Silver Duck]

Islander

What I originally posted, and Dave seconded, is quite true and ia a very important concept for operators who are trying to minimize their wake. So, let me try to explain again, more clearly (though the physics class I learned it in was a long time ago . My appologies to any physicists for over-simplification and leaving out the math - it gives me a headache. )

A boat in motion has two possible modes of operation; i.e., displacement and planing.

At slow speeds, a boat is operating in displacement mode (so named because it's sitting down in the water and displaces [pushes aside] the water through which it moves.

In displacement mode, a boat makes two waves, one at the bow and one at the stern. (More about this later.)

In displacement mode, the faster the boat goes, the more water it displaces, and the bigger the wake it leaves.

That remains true until the boat reaches what's called "hull speed", which is the fastest any given hull can go and still operate in displacement mode.

Now, any boat's "hull speed" is governed by the distance between the bow wave and the stern wave; the greater the distance between the waves, the faster the boat can go and still be in displacement mode. (That's why the Mount's wake got smaller after she was lenghened.)

For a displacement type hull (think large-ish sailboat), hull speed is all you can ever reach because of the hull shape. Pour in extra power, the hull just squats lower, more water is displaced, and its wake just gets bigger. I've seen a movie of an experiment demonstrating this. A big sport-fisherman was towing a good sized sail boat using a special harness; it was pretty amazing!

With a planing hull (most power boats), that's not the case because planing hulls have flat surfaces at the stern.

A boat with a planing hull, after it reaches hull speed, actually climbs up over its own bow wave and skims over the water on those flat surface I mentioned. Since less of the hull is in the water at this point, less water is being displaced and the wake size is reduced.

There's typically a pretty wide range between "hull speed" and "planing speed" (the lowest speed it can go and still skim over the water on those flat surfaces). For instance, on my boat hull speed is about 7.5 mph, and "planing speed" is pretty close to 20 mph. Even then the boat's not riding as high as it can, and is making a bigger wake that it would at higher speeds.

Now, here's the rub. As a planing hull is going from "hull speed" to "planing speed", it's squatting low in the water and pushing the biggest wake that it possible can (and burning gas in painful quantities.)

So, the upshot is that the longer the boat takes to accelerate to "planing speed" the longer it pushes the biggest wake it possibly can. And, believe me, an under powered boat can take a long time to accelerate to "planing speed", or maybe never get up to where it's making the least possbile wake.

All of which is why I stated that horsepower limits can be counter productive to minimizing wake.

Sorry for the long post, but boat operators need to realize that the faster they can get up on a good plane, the better it is for everyone concerned.

Silver Duck

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

Islander

Sorry for the long post, but boat operators need to realize that the faster they can get up on a good plane, the better it is for everyone concerned.

Silver Duck

Silver Duck - you hit the nail on the head. Get up on plane and stay there. The usual suspects tried to twist this thread into a speed limit thread, but no way - it's all about the waves.

Sounds like a good commercial: "Hey Cap't Bonehead - Wake Down...It's all about the Waves". I like it

[SweetCraft]

two crucial elements are missing from your arquement.... one reason the usage is dropping on the lake is 1) it is too rough now for the average boat/smaller boat. These far out number the larger boats . They spend more since they out number larger boats 5 to 1 or more 2) Winni is not seen as "clean" or pristine anymore. Too many boats and pollution. A negative perception of the lake will continue to erode our tourism/customer base. How do we overcome these negative issues? Limit the number of boats/size of boats. This will make the lake calmer and cleaner since shore erosion will be reduced. Notice how cloudy the water gets on weekends these days from all the HUGE wakes??? Further recent proposed DES legislation regarding the shoreline is already underway to address the water quality issue. This is step one to improve the tourists perception . The second step will be limiting boats or size thus reducing waves and erosion. Calmer/cleaner lake is the result. I am speaking from first hand knowledge. The plan is being worked/discussed RIGHT NOW and these solutions are being seriously considered. Unfortunately losing the quality of our lake whether real or perceived will cost us FAR more tourists/money than any laws/limits on boats. Limiting boats will make people want to come here again. That is why it will happen. So we are both right. Tourist dollars will drive this issue. We just don't agree on how this will be addressed. 2-1? I will give even higher odds...... Lets make the bet!

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by SweetCraft

two crucial elements are missing from your arquement.... one reason the usage is dropping on the lake is 1) it is too rough now for the average boat/smaller boat. These far out number the larger boats . They spend more since they out number larger boats 5 to 1 or more 2) Winni is not seen as "clean" or pristine anymore. Too many boats and pollution. A negative perception of the lake will continue to erode our tourism/customer base. How do we overcome these negative issues? Limit the number of boats/size of boats. This will make the lake calmer and cleaner since shore erosion will be reduced. Notice how cloudy the water gets on weekends these days from all the HUGE wakes??? Further recent proposed DES legislation regarding the shoreline is already underway to address the water quality issue. This is step one to improve the tourists perception . The second step will be limiting boats or size thus reducing waves and erosion. Calmer/cleaner lake is the result. I am speaking from first hand knowledge. The plan is being worked/discussed RIGHT NOW and these solutions are being seriously considered. Unfortunately losing the quality of our lake whether real or perceived will cost us FAR more tourists/money than any laws/limits on boats. Limiting boats will make people want to come here again. That is why it will happen. So we are both right. Tourist dollars will drive this issue. We just don't agree on how this will be addressed. 2-1? I will give even higher odds...... Lets make the bet!

So the plan is to limit the number of boats and this will draw people to the lake? What will they do when they get to the lake, stand on the shore and wish they could boat? Sounds like a really fun vacation. "Mommy, can we go to Disney next year instead?"

This sounds like a thinly veiled, green party plan to "fix" the lake, disguised as a plan to help the local economy, to me. I don't doubt that people are working on/discussing these ideas right now, I just doubt that it would help the economy if it ever happens and and seriously doubt the economy is driving the plan.

What does the DES plan for the shoreline to improve the water quality? Just curious. I am all for letting the immediate shoreline go back to it's natural state as it's been proven time and again that this really works to help water quality and makes waves/wakes rather moot. I know this will wreck some really nice lawns and private beaches, but said lawns and beaches are just terrible for the water. Perhaps the DES should lighten up on its convluted process to get permission to alter the shoreline to prevent erosion as well.


Is this being discussed by the same folks who claim the area will lose $51 million in tourist revenue due to crowding (among other things), by chance?

[SweetCraft]

I am talking economics and since it's upsetting to you it becomes "green party", liberal , tree huggers, democrats..... why does it always go there on this site? If the lake gets cloudy, crappy and full of milfoil then you won't have to worry about any tourists doing anything up here. These policies will protect the lake and make folks want to come here. They will be able to purchase a permit and use the lake. A calmer, cleaner lake at that. Protecting the lake and perserving it.... I can't really think of a more conservative and pro economy thing to do? Check out Teddy Roosevelt's biography and all the things he did regarding conservation in our country via the National Parks. He got it and he is one of the greatest REPUBLICAN Presidents we have ever had. Stop making this a liberal issue when its not. Protecting the lake is not only good business its also our duty as responsible Americans to safe guard our resources for future generations. Get used to us "Greenies".... there will LOTS of us in the coming years and many of us will be conservative Repulicans.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by SweetCraft

I am talking economics and since it's upsetting to you it becomes "green party", liberal , tree huggers, democrats..... why does it always go there on this site? If the lake gets cloudy, crappy and full of milfoil then you won't have to worry about any tourists doing anything up here. These policies will protect the lake and make folks want to come here. They will be able to purchase a permit and use the lake. A calmer, cleaner lake at that. Protecting the lake and perserving it.... I can't really think of a more conservative and pro economy thing to do? Check out Teddy Roosevelt's biography and all the things he did regarding conservation in our country via the National Parks. He got it and he is one of the greatest REPUBLICAN Presidents we have ever had. Stop making this a liberal issue when its not. Protecting the lake is not only good business its also our duty as responsible Americans to safe guard our resources for future generations. Get used to us "Greenies".... there will LOTS of us in the coming years and many of us will be conservative Repulicans.

I didn't mean "Green Party" as an insult, don't be so sensitive. I am a liberal myself, except when it comes to dumb laws, excessive taxation and excessive spending, in those regards I'm very conservative.

I LIKE the idea of preserving the lake. I don't like ulterior motives and BS statistics. Those traits are not limited to any political party.

The green party, in general will never be successful at convincing folks to buy into its ideas because it's too extreme and has a history of deceit; the economic study you mentioned is a perfect example. It'll always be a fringe group with some good ideas but no hope of real success.

[B R]

Originally Posted by SweetCraft

two crucial elements are missing from your arquement.... one reason the usage is dropping on the lake is 1) it is too rough now for the average boat/smaller boat. These far out number the larger boats . They spend more since they out number larger boats 5 to 1 or more 2) Winni is not seen as "clean" or pristine anymore. Too many boats and pollution. A negative perception of the lake will continue to erode our tourism/customer base. How do we overcome these negative issues? Limit the number of boats/size of boats. This will make the lake calmer and cleaner since shore erosion will be reduced. Notice how cloudy the water gets on weekends these days from all the HUGE wakes??? Further recent proposed DES legislation regarding the shoreline is already underway to address the water quality issue. This is step one to improve the tourists perception . The second step will be limiting boats or size thus reducing waves and erosion. Calmer/cleaner lake is the result. I am speaking from first hand knowledge. The plan is being worked/discussed RIGHT NOW and these solutions are being seriously considered. Unfortunately losing the quality of our lake whether real or perceived will cost us FAR more tourists/money than any laws/limits on boats. Limiting boats will make people want to come here again. That is why it will happen. So we are both right. Tourist dollars will drive this issue. We just don't agree on how this will be addressed. 2-1? I will give even higher odds...... Lets make the bet!

I am not following your logic. You say that by regulating the amount of boats that can use the lake it will bring in more tourists? And what will those tourists be doing?

People come to the lake to use the lake, overwhelmingly with a boat. If you don't let them boat on the lake you think more people will come?? Sorry, that's not going to happen.

[Gavia immer]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

As a planing hull is going from "hull speed" to "planing speed", it's squatting low in the water and pushing the biggest wake that it possible can (and burning gas in painful quantities.)

The answer is to put 5000 horsepower in a cruiser and go as fast as possible to burn less gas?

There's never going to be a wake from a cruiser that is manageable by the typical lake boat.....as well as the fastest boats seen on the lake.

[Silver Duck]

Gavia Immer

Nobody mentioned 5000 hp (before you, that is!) But, yes, being up on a solid plane does burn far less gas than plowing along between displacement and planing speeds, because it makes less wake.

Whether it fits your agenda or not, it's a fact, and something that any skipper interested in minimizing their wake (and their fuel bill) should be aware of.

As for your second statement, that's pure hyperbole, again designed to fit your agenda. Even the worst of the wakes that Captain Bonehead sees fit to gift us with are quite easily manageable by today's typical lake boat (which is, by my observation, on the order of 18 - 24 ft) if the operator is knowledgeable enough to approach the wake at an angle.

What is it, exactly, that you consider to be a typical lake boat? Also, what does "the fastest boats seen on the lake " have to do with the subject?

Silver Duck

[Silver Duck]

Islander

I must have missed something. Any type of boat that interferes with you enjoying the lake in your preferred manner should be banned?

It certainly seems to me that your suggestion would most certainly interfering with those folks enjoying the lake in their preferred way!

Could you explain, convincingly, why your interests are more important than theirs? Did I miss someone being crowned as Emperor of Winnipesaukee?

In answering, please keep in mind that what you're suggesting is analogous to the cruiser owners suggesting that your island home be disassembled and moved to Cape Cod because they think that it ruins the pristine beauty of the shoreline! (Yes, cruisers are legitimate second homes; even the IRS recognizes that status.)

Silver Duck

[ossipeeboater]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

Islander

I must have missed something. Any type of boat that interferes with you enjoying the lake in your preferred manner should be banned?

It certainly seems to me that your suggestion would most certainly interfering with those folks enjoying the lake in their preferred way!

Could you explain, convincingly, why your interests are more important than theirs? Did I miss someone being crowned as Emperor of Winnipesaukee?

In answering, please keep in mind that what you're suggesting is analogous to the cruiser owners suggesting that your island home be disassembled and moved to Cape Cod because they think that it ruins the pristine beauty of the shoreline! (Yes, cruisers are legitimate second homes; even the IRS recognizes that status.)

Silver Duck

did you know the islanders have more of a right than any of the rest of us?

[Islander]

ossipeeboater - Everyone on both sides of the argument has stated that islanders do not have any more rights than anyone else. So I guess you just want to cause trouble.

Silver Duck - Gee... I don't remember posting anything like you suggest.

Let me be clear. I think this lake is pure but fragile and increasingly more polluted. I think the lake is to small for the bigger, high horsepower boats that are becoming more prevalent. I believe limits of some kind are inevitable.

I hope that grandfathering or a slow phase in of limits is possible so that existing lake boaters don't get screwed.

I like my 270 HP boat, but will trade it in for something smaller if the consensus is that this HP is to much. I'll bet even money that in 20 years the maximum HP is 100 or less.

I think one of the first things enacted should be a ban on 2 cycle engines. Now THERE is an idea that will be unpopular, especially on the islands.

[Gavia immer]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

Even the worst of the wakes that Captain Bonehead sees fit to gift us with are quite easily manageable by today's typical lake boat (which is, by my observation, on the order of 18 - 24 ft) if the operator is knowledgeable enough to approach the wake at an angle.

What is it, exactly, that you consider to be a typical lake boat? Also, what does "the fastest boats seen on the lake " have to do with the subject?

You suggested that a typical lake boat runs UP TO 24 feet and I agree. Most canoes and kayaks are typically 7 feet or more shorter, windsurfers even shorter, and there are often much smaller boats on weekends.

Damage to docked boats, erosion to shoreline, injury to the casual boater, beach swimmer, canoe, "falls within boat", or the swamping of any typical lake boat should not be the price paid for "comfort" with "a HOUSE" operating on Winnipesaukee at speeds above HEADWAY.

IMO

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

Boats keep getting faster and bigger, who displace away the smaller displacement boats. The remaining smaller boats "buy up" to bigger displacement boats, who displace the remaining small boats, which.....

I do agree that small boats are becoming less prevalent, but as a former "smaller" boat owner, I can assure you it has very little to do with other boats and far more to do with typical, afternoon, wind-driven chop, one sees on such a large lake, and the comfort a larger boat provides in said chop. In my present boat, I can comfortably stay on plane in chop that would compel me to plow along at semi-displacement speed in my last boat. The fact that my boat also handles big wakes better does not hurt but they are far less of a concern than the pounding we used to take in the smaller boat from naturally occuring waves.

The same was true in the 70s when my parents up-sized from a 16.5 foot Grady White to a 27 foot Grady White. Had nothing to do with wakes and everything to do with more boating days during our short NH boating season.

[Gavia immer]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I do agree that small boats are becoming less prevalent, but as a former "smaller" boat owner, I can assure you it has very little to do with other boats and far more to do with typical, afternoon, wind-driven chop, one sees on such a large lake, and the comfort a larger boat provides in said chop.

Small boats are the Winnipesaukee norm after Ice Out. Since the frigid rain, fog and wind are often msierable in April/May, you'd expect to see large boats. But they're not out there. Everybody out there is in those aluminum 12, 14, 16, and 18 foot boats. In late June, those mostly disappear and are replaced by "fair weather" boats double their size and larger.

As to comfort, watch the stats for "falls in boat". Exclude the wake jumpers because wake jumping is illegal on Lake Winnipesaukee. But planing boats that have struck a rogue wake? (To coin a term). If occupants are airborne for two seconds after hitting a wake....then are dropped back onto the boat, you can expect serious injury. Broken backs are a more commonly reported injury on this lake. Who knows how many other "falls in boat" injuries go unreported.

There's nothing wrong with proceeding at "semi-displacement speed" while quartering wakes and waves. That is how I manage heavy weather boating for my lower back condition.

An effort to control wake size and intensity is needed for other reasons than pulling dirt from islands and other Winnipesaukee shorelines. Bucketloads of fresh dirt won't make that problem go away. For many, still-bigger boats won't help an afternoon's enjoyment on the lake either.

[tis]

Knot- So true! So scary!

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

Small boats are the Winnipesaukee norm after Ice Out. Since the frigid rain, fog and wind are often msierable in April/May, you'd expect to see large boats. But they're not out there. Everybody out there is in those aluminum 12, 14, 16, and 18 foot boats. In late June, those mostly disappear and are replaced by "fair weather" boats double their size and larger.

As to comfort, watch the stats for "falls in boat". Exclude the wake jumpers because wake jumping is illegal on Lake Winnipesaukee. But planing boats that have struck a rogue wake? (To coin a term). If occupants are airborne for two seconds after hitting a wake....then are dropped back onto the boat, you can expect serious injury. Broken backs are a more commonly reported injury on this lake. Who knows how many other "falls in boat" injuries go unreported.

There's nothing wrong with proceeding at "semi-displacement speed" while quartering wakes and waves. That is how I manage heavy weather boating for my lower back condition.

An effort to control wake size and intensity is needed for other reasons than pulling dirt from islands and other Winnipesaukee shorelines. Bucketloads of fresh dirt won't make that problem go away. For many, still-bigger boats won't help an afternoon's enjoyment on the lake either.

I understand what you mean, think giant cruisers on the lake are pretty silly, and I don't like huge wakes either, but the responsibility for safe operation of a boat falls squarely with the skipper. Hypothetically speaking: If someone breaks their back aboard my boat, because I have gone over a wake too fast, it's entirely my fault, I was operating too fast for conditions.

I seriously doubt a responsible skipper would take a 12 or 14 foot boat out accross the broads in a 20 MPH northwest breeze, regardless of boat traffic or the time of year. That would be a day to stay home or in a sheltered cove. I don't have to becuase my boat is big enough to deal with it. It's not a 40+ foot boat, it's reasonably sized at 25 feet, and perfectly adequate for my needs without having a huge impact on the lakeshore while still being trailerable. There are plenty of boats out there bigger than mine (there were plenty bigger than 25 feet in the early 70s, when I first started boating here too, so it's not like bigger boats a new thing).

I don't like cruising at semi-displacement speeds and find them exhausting. I'm glad you don't mind doing so and are pleased with your choice in a boat.

Worst case, thus far: I put the tabs down on my boat, set my speed to 20 MPH and cruise in comfort, on-plane. Normally, I can maintain 30 MPH regardless of the chop. It's not like I'm flying, either way.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Dave R

... I seriously doubt a responsible skipper would take a 12 or 14 foot boat out accross the broads in a 20 MPH northwest breeze, regardless of boat traffic or the time of year. That would be a day to stay home or in a sheltered cove...

It's done all the time. A 14 foot aluminum with 10 or 15 HP motor is an island standard. A 20 MPH wind would keep me from crossing the broads, but I will take mine anywhere else.

The key issue is water quality. In the open areas the quality has remained high. Quality in the bays has been dropping.

If or when the quality drops enough to alarm the public, limits of some kind will be imposed.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

If or when the quality drops enough to alarm the public, limits of some kind will be imposed.

You are probably hoping the solution would be to impose limits on boats. Since we are both dreaming, I would like to see a more logical solution that REALLY addresses the issues...

My thoughts:

DES relaxes process to get permission to alter shoreline SOLELY for the sake of improving areas that are subject to wake/wave erosion. There is no need for this process to be difficult for the land owner. A huge program would be started to educate waterfront land owners and low interest loans or grants could be established for those that need help implementing these shore altering projects.

DES enhances laws about altering the shoreline for the sake of views, beaches, docks etc., with the intent to leave healthy, natural shoreline alone and to encourage the re-establishment of shoreline in areas already altered. Fines levied on abusers would be based on the value of the property, the damage done, and would need to be painfully punitive, not a slap on the wrist.

After a specific time limit, DES first gives warnings and then levies fines on waterfront property owners that do not control erosion that occurs with the lake level at "full lake" or below. Obviously, flooding would be outside the realm of reason.

This plan would make the shore vastly more resilient to wakes, and THAT would also make it more resilient to floods and natural waves as well, without harming the economy. Limiting boat size would only prevent damage from boats. My plan covers all damage.

[Bear Islander]

In what way can the shoreline be altered to protect against wave/wake erosion? Winnipesaukee has 282 miles of shoreline, almost all of it natural. How can you alter the shore without making more of a problem during construction? How many billions will this cost? How many decades to complete?

And we should do all this so that a few hundred large boats, that belong on the ocean anyway, can operate on a delicate pristine lake?

Obviously we disagree. Is they anywhere we can agree? Is there any size or speed that you think is to much for this lake?

[B R]

Originally Posted by SweetCraft

Unfortunately the reality of the situation will be that NH Government will need to limit the # of the boats on the lake in order to protect/maintain the quality of its valuable economic resource called Winni. The way they will do this? Either a lottery for a set # of permits as many midwestern lakes do now or limiting size/hp/displacement. You wouldn't have a 100 folks in your pool if it only held 30 would you? Sorry folks hate to rain on the parade and everyone's "freedom" but in order to protect the lake for the many and future generations (they have rights to it also) limits will need to be put in place. Its sad but we just won't do the right thing and protect it on our own.

Its coming. I will take all bets.... place your bets....... 5 years MAX.....

Besides all the reasons jrc mentions above, there are many tax revenue reasons why the state does NOT want the crowds to go away any time soon (and I too believe the crowds are not nearly what they were 5 years ago).

There was an article in the Citizen this week mentioning the out of state boat registration bill didn't pass or won't be voted on. This bill was attempting to charge out of state registered boats a fee for using lakes in the state. One of the reasons used to defeat the bill was the perceived negative affect the bill would have had on tourism.

Now we're not talking a ton of money OR a ton of people being affected. But the legislature is concerned enough about making laws that will have a negative effect on tourism and more importantly, tourism dollars.

NH's largest source of revenue is tourism. NH's largest tourism attraction is the lakes region. If they were hesitant to charge the few people who would have been affected by the registration bill, how do you think they are going to put large limits on the amount of boats that use the lake?

NH has built a revenue model around collecting as many taxes as possible from non-residents. I don't believe that's the case in those "western states". For that matter, I wouldn't be surprised if NH holds the record for collecting as much money from non-voting taxpayers as any state in the country, per capita.

So I'll take bets AND I'll give 2:1 odds that NH has either a sales tax or an income tax before any boat limitations via number of boats allowed on the lake is implemented.

[Pineedles]

B R is right. Although I don't place a lot of confidence in gov't to do the right thing, I can't imagine the NH Lakes Region being some sort of Shangrilla to the exclusion of all other places where you could launch your boat and thereby fulfill your boating needs. But, who knows? If global warming is the way of things to come, then Aroostook Valley, Maine will be the next Virginia Beach. A place on Winnipesaukee could be $100,000 per foot of shore frontage? I wish I had some money to invest in more shore frontage.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Dave R

"...Seriously, if you like the idea of lakes with HP, displacement, and speed limits, why on earth would you have a place on Winnipesaukee? From what I hear, there's thousands of lakes with speed limits and no enforcement problems; why don't you live on one of them instead? There's one really close by and a whole state full of them just south of us...."

An invitation to leave?

The problem didn't originate with those of us who reside on Lake Winnipesaukee. The problem was brought to us, courtesy of a burgeoning economy, increased land values, "Keeping up with the Joneses", and a wake "throw-weight" that is spiraling ever-upwards, discouraging the family boater. (Nationwide, BTW).

To the question that I answered earlier, "The few" are chasing away the family boater, thereby "growing" the percentage of irresponsible boaters.

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

"...A boat in motion stays in motion, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, displacement hulls, blah, blah, blah, blah, horsepower limits, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, flat surfaces, blah, blah, blah, blah, down in the water, blah, blah, blah, skim over the water, blah, blah, blah, and the cube root of the hypotenuse..."

Cruisers are poorly designed to race from their overnighting berths to a party-anchorage site on recreational, protected, inland, and largely residential lakes. They also multi-task to tow tubers, videotape their family's Jet-Ski wake jumpers, and to tow waterskiers—fully inappropriate design applications for those same lakes.

Whatever happened to cruisers that "cruised"?

[Gatto Nero]

Originally Posted by Islander

......However if you insist this is possible then we can have a horsepower, number of cylinder AND displacement maximum.

Now dream up a way to get around that!

Vote Republican

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Islander

Sorry, but no reasonable person is going to buy this lower horsepower means bigger wake thing. As I remember speed limits mean bigger wake to. Does global warming cause larger wake?

Yes, I'm sure there is a possible situation where replacing a boats engine with a smaller one will keep it from getting on plane. But that same boat would create the same large wake with a larger engine at partial power.

And do you really think anybody is going to take the big engines out of a GFBL and put in tiny ones? That I would like to see.

However if you insist this is possible then we can have a horsepower, number of cylinder AND displacement maximum.

Now dream up a way to get around that!

Have you ever noticed that when on plane, the faster you go, the smaller the wake becomes? I did not mean to imply that folks would put ridiculously small engines in boats, such that they could only plow along, I suggest only that lower cruising speeds necessitated by lower HP would make bigger wakes. When my boat is barely on plane, it kicks up an enormous wake. Another 10 MPH and the wake is pretty reasonable. If I had a less powerful engine, I'd be compelled to drop my cruising speed to keep the engine in a reasonable RPM range for longevity.

GFBL boats do not, typically, kick up a big wake and would be foolish to target if wakes were the issue. At 50 MPH they make tiny ripples.

How do you plan to measure displacement? You think the MP is going to tear down each engine and measure the bore and stroke? What displacement limit would you suggest? Or did you mean the boat's displacement? In that case what would you suggest?

[Islander]

Sorry, hull displacement not engine displacement. Or just the weight of the boat.

[jrc]

I've resisted this topic, basically because I stuck my foot in my mouth last year regarding wakes. But lets compare the new wake crusade against the old speed limit crusade.

The speed limit law seeks to prevent a activity that we've all been told is dangerous all our lives, "Speed Kills". It's supported by sincere sounding people expressing fear for their safety. Fear of being run over by a speeding boat is easy for a non-boater to understand. It mostly effects a very esoteric boating community and only indirectly pushes them off the lake. There is an innocent victim. It has support from a substantial portion of the lake industry, some boat dealers and restaurant chains. That's why a speed limit always had a fighting chance of passing.

A boat size limit would be very different. We have no life history or point of reference on what is bad about a big boat. Any safety issue is very tenuous and hard for non-boaters to grasp. It directly bans a very popular boating community. There are no obvious victims. I will not have the support of the lake industry. Every boat dealer statewide will see this a direct assault on their business. A Winnipesaukee size limit would naturally have to apply to all smaller lakes, so this affects everyone. No restaurant chain will dare offend such a huge, rich customer base. The vast majority of boaters will reject it, because we all dream of getting a bigger boat someday.

I don't think a big boat ban will go anywhere.

[KBoater]

I think there were several Miss Winnipesaukees and the max. speed was about 35 mph. I’m not sure of these facts. Does anyone know the truth?

What is fast is very relative as I’m sure FLL will agree. My 13 foot Whaler with a 25 hp seemed fast because of your closeness to the water.

I once made it from Wolfeboro Bay to Sheps in 15 minutes in a Montauk Whaler with a 90 hp. This was with calm water.

Now I have slowed done a little with an older boat on Winnie. I am looking for a new to me boat for Florida which will be smaller.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by FLboater

I think there were several Miss Winnipesaukees and the max. speed was about 35 mph. I’m not sure of these facts. Does anyone know the truth?

What is fast is very relative as I’m sure FLL will agree. My 13 foot Whaler with a 25 hp seemed fast because of your closeness to the water.

Fast is relative....and subjective.I was just on my PWC Saturday and was going 60+ on calm water.A PWC sits pretty close to the water and I feel very comfortable at that speed.Conversely,when its very choppy on the lake,40 feels very fast.Yup, good point,it is all relative.
By the way,I believe that boat used to go in excess of 60 mph.

[Knot Droolin']

I say we just regulate ourselves into a coma, and the faster the better! I for one find all these choices of size, speed, hull shape etc. too difficult and feel the government should make these choices for me.

Furthermore, if the government can relieve me and everyone else of any responisibility for anything then we can regulate the lawyers out of existence while we are at it!

Remember to vote BIG government and let the government do the thinking for you!

After we are done regulating the lake, we should tackle the issue of regulating our roadways:

Ban tractor trailors -> too big, loud and dangerous
Ban bicycles from all roads -> too many people get hurt this way
Ban SUV's from our roads -> too big and waste too much gas
Ban small hybrids -> too small to be safe (unless it has a Green Peace bumber sticker, then it is OK)
Ban motorcycles -> they are too loud and unsafe
Ban anyone under 20 from driving -> they are unsafe drivers
ban anyone over 65 from driving -> same reason as above


Once we are done with roads we can start to legislate what type of house everyone can live in!

I guess I better say it before I am attacked: this is parody, but it is the sad direction we seem headed in....