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

[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.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Islander

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.

Why do you think it's increasingly more polluted? I swear I can recall my parents telling me some towns were dumping raw sewage into the lake as late as the 1970s. Septic design laws have become dramatically more strict in the last few decades. There's far fewer smoky, old-school, two-stroke engines on the lake and stiff fines for fuel spills. New laws will force all new motor boats to have catalytic converters in less than a decade. The lake seems less crowded than it has in years and new noise laws are helping keep the noise down. There's no longer any coal burning steamships on the lake. There's no longer a logging industry using the lake for transport, or lakeside industry of any sort that I can think of. I hardly ever see any floating trash.

The only growing pollution problem I am aware of is at public beaches and is caused solely by people doing pretty disgusting things, for reasons that are beyond me, in the water. It's not just Winnipesaukkee beaches, you should see what washes up on shore after a holiday weekend at Pawtuckaway State Park beach, nasty! I'd be willing to bet the people responsible for this kind of pollution typically don't have boats or homes on the lake.

[Islander]

There are several people that have been on the island more than 80 years. They tell a different story about the history of the lake and if it is better or worse now. But their observations, like yours, are anecdotal. The real evidence comes from scientific studies done repeatedly over many years at the same locations. The data does not go back as far as we would wish, but the State and UNH both have monitoring programs for the lake.

There is lots of data available. This link is to an easy to read summary.

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~jjencks/Fin...t%20Jencks.htm

The water quality is good, the trend in the bays is bad.


"Concluding from this data, the overall lake water quality over the years is pristine, but there are local regions that do show signs of impairment. The worst region would be Center Harbor. There is an obvious high to low trend in that area and the region with the most upsets to the pristine criteria. Most of the regions have at least ten years of data. It is important to continue to monitor the lakes water quality, so short and long term effects are noticed and can be addressed. To draw a better conclusion on the impairments, all parameter data should be analyzed and compared as some parameters are affected by others. "

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Islander

"Concluding from this data, the overall lake water quality over the years is pristine, but there are local regions that do show signs of impairment. The worst region would be Center Harbor. There is an obvious high to low trend in that area and the region with the most upsets to the pristine criteria. Most of the regions have at least ten years of data. It is important to continue to monitor the lakes water quality, so short and long term effects are noticed and can be addressed. To draw a better conclusion on the impairments, all parameter data should be analyzed and compared as some parameters are affected by others. "

I saw that study too. The problem I have with the Center Harbor conclusion is that the lates data analyzed is 8 years old and wildly variable. Center Harbor may very well be on an upward trend by now (or a cesspool). It's truly impossible to predict 2007 results from wildly fluctuating data taken from 1986 to 1999. The other data in that study is more recent and I find it odd that the author based her single negative conclusion on the one data point where she had the least and most out of date data.

[Islander]

If you have seen this data why are you pretending it doesn't exist? How can you read this data and pretend the lake is not becoming more polluted?

You loose all credibility when you start questioning the data collected by UNH. The State and UNH say the quality is dropping but "Dave R" thinks otherwise because of some things he remembers his parents telling him. Give me a break!

The is plenty of more recent data available. Check out the Center Harbor stats for 2003.

The FACT is the lake is becoming less pristine. That is true even if it doesn't fit your agenda.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Islander

If you have seen this data why are you pretending it doesn't exist? How can you read this data and pretend the lake is not becoming more polluted?

You loose all credibility when you start questioning the data collected by UNH. The State and UNH say the quality is dropping but "Dave R" thinks otherwise because of some things he remembers his parents telling him. Give me a break!

The is plenty of more recent data available. Check out the Center Harbor stats for 2003.

The FACT is the lake is becoming less pristine. That is true even if it doesn't fit your agenda.

I never pretended not to read it and I never pretended the lake is more or less polluted. Frankly, I have no idea if it's more or less polluted than it was a century, or even a decade ago. If you have some other data, please share. I don't (I really don't, I am not pretending that I don't). I never offered my anecdotal evidence as proof. Show me your "FACT"s. Your agenda is glaringly obvious. I don't have an agenda, I just like a debate.

Where is the 2003 data for Center Harbor? I could not find anything newer than 1999 in the study you linked.

You should note that the link you posted was not a study done by UNH or the State of NH; it is a project done by a UNH student using data provided by volunteers. We have no clue what her grade was, we have no clue how accurate her data was and we have no clue what her agenda was (I think it was to graduate though). We can however, draw some conclusions of our own based on the data she presented.

I found two glaring faults regarding her conclusion about Center Harbor, the data is 8 to 21 years old old, and there are only 2 monitoring locations in Center Harbor. It's obvious by the results from the rest of the lake that 2 monitoring points do not provide enough data. Note how there's 9 locations around Governer's Island (arguably the area with the highest level of boat traffic...) and how the data varies substantially less year to year, and is always "pristine". Same results for Long Island, 9 monitor points, very little variation, always "pristine". Alton has 7 monitor points, very little varaition, always "pristine" (except for a chlorophyll "spike" in 2004). Moultonboro has 10 sites, very little varaition, always "pristine".

[Islander]

Dave R

Why don't you do an internet search and read the data for yourself. You apparently don't believe the evidence that I provide.

I'm sorry that the study showing the lake becoming more polluted has only two test sites in Center Harbor. Are there any studies showing the lake is not becoming more polluted? Or a study that evaluates a greater number of test sites? You don't like the evidence so it must be wrong. Do you work for a cigarette company?

You seem to take comfort in the lake having a designation as "pristine". However pristine describes a RANGE of water quality. The problem is that the lake is falling from the higher part of that range to a lower part. If the problems continue one day we will be out of the pristine range all the time, not just here and there now and then.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Islander

Dave R

Why don't you do an internet search and read the data for yourself. You apparently don't believe the evidence that I provide.

I did. I found just a little more data than you did. I completely believe the data you provided; it's good, solid, data. Your conclusions are simply wrong, AND you made the mistake of stating them as "FACT".

There are a couple of fairly recent studies that show parts the lake are pristine but that they have occasional short-term pollution problems. Here's an excerpt:

"7) Based on the current and historical water quality data, Meredith Bay would be considered an unproductive "pristine" portion of Lake Winnipesaukee that is characterized by clear water and low levels of microscopic plant growth. However, short term water clarity reductions and short-term algal blooms have been documented in Meredith Bay and suggest periodic pollutant inputs (par-ticularly the nutrient phosphorus). "

Another study shows Moultonboro bay to be less than pristine and clearly calls for action on the part of waterfront property owners here:

"Based on the current and historical water quality data, Moultonborough Bay would be a moderately nutrient enriched “transitional” segment of Lake Winnipesaukee while the open waters of Winter Harbor and Wolfeboro Bay are currently characterized as relatively unproductive “pristine” segments of the lake. A first step towards preserving the high water quality in Lake Win-nipesaukee is to take action at the local level and do your part to minimize the number of pollutants (particularly sediment and the nutrient phosphorus) that enter the lake. Whenever possible, maintain riparian buffers (vegetative buffers adjacent to the water body). These buffers will biologically “take up” nutrients before they enter the lake and will also provide physical filters which allow materials to settle out before reaching the lake. Reduce fertilizer applications. Most residents apply far more fertilizers than necessary which can be a costly expense to the homeowner and can also be detrimental to the lake since the same nutrients that make our lawns green will also stimulate plant growth in our lakes."

The same study shows how wetlands (natural I suppose) contribute to water quality problems, and implies waterfront property owners may be a problem as well here:

" The 2002 seasonal average Moultonborough Bay water clarity is low, relative to the other locations around the lake, while the amount of microscopic plant growth in Moultonborough Bay is one of the higher levels documented in Lake Winnipesaukee (Figures 51 and 52). Extensive wetland drainage into Moultonborough Bay, and the accompanying “tea” stained water, is partially responsible for the shallower water transparency readings. Likewise, the wetlands can, at times, contribute nutrients that stimulate the mi-croscopic plant “algal” growth. In addition, patches of “heavy” development, compounded with a lack of flushing, might also contribute, and concentrate, nutrients that stimulate algal growth and, in-turn, result in water quality problems."

I ahve nothing to do with these studies. Both indicate how the lake was during 2002 and show no trends so they conclude nothing about the delta of pollution levels in the lake over time, which is what I am interested in.

You seem to think I take personal pride in the lake or something. I have no ties with the lake at all. I just plop my boat in it and enjoy it when I can. It's merely one of several boating destinations for me. I do my part to follow the boating and environmental laws while I'm there, and I fully admit that I really like spending my time on the lake, but if the lake gets nasty, I'll just go somewhere else.

I still do not know if the lakre is getting better or worse. If it is changing (for better or worse), I tend to believe the waterfront property owners have almost everything to do with it.

You blame big or fast boats for a problem that you have yet to show proof even exists. Oddly, none of the studies I can find even mentioned boat wakes or speed...

[MAINLANDER]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I did. I found just a little more data than you did. I completely believe the data you provided; it's good, solid, data. Your conclusions are simply wrong, AND you made the mistake of stating them as "FACT"....

Great post. The #1 cause of water quality issues is waterfront landowners. Weather it's lawn fertilizer, sediment runoff, or leaking septic systems. Therefore we should ban houses and camps on the lake???

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I still do not know if the lakre is getting better or worse. If it is changing (for better or worse), I tend to believe the waterfront property owners have almost everything to do with it.

Spoken like a true boat lover that does not own waterfront property!

The lake is not getting less pristine.... cigarettes don't cause cancer.... big boats don't cause big wakes... O.J. was the victim... I get the picture.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Islander

Spoken like a true boat lover that does not own waterfront property!

The lake is not getting less pristine.... cigarettes don't cause cancer.... big boats don't cause big wakes... O.J. was the victim... I get the picture.

How about following the advice of one of my folk heros, the always on point Joe Friday, and give us:

"Just the facts Mam, just the facts...."

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Islander

Spoken like a true boat lover that does not own waterfront property!

Wow, I hate to sound petty. but there's no way to deny those are the words of a true snob! You sure that's what you really meant?

It's true though, I only own "water access" vacation property on a lovely lake in Maine. Owning it gives me access to water even if the likes of you succeed in denying it to "regular" boat loving folks. If that ever happens, I'll let the plebes use my access just to irritate the snobs...

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Islander

Spoken like a true boat lover that does not own waterfront property!

The lake is not getting less pristine.... cigarettes don't cause cancer.... big boats don't cause big wakes... O.J. was the victim... I get the picture.

How does one discuss and debate issues with someone posting comments like these?I don't necessary agree or disagree with Dave or Islanders view on lake quality but I do put more weight towards someone who posts clear thoughts without throwing in comments that have nothing to do with the discussion.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Why do you think it's increasingly more polluted? I swear I can recall my parents telling me some towns were dumping raw sewage into the lake as late as the 1970s.

Having been at Lake Winnipesaukee for many years, I can say I have no recollection of a raw sewage problem from towns, even as rumors. My own Tuftonboro grandparents never mentioned anything like that.

Even if your second-hand recollection was correct, the lake stayed as a "Class A -- drinkable" until about 1976—decades before I considered junk mail offers that would arrive stating, "Test your water—free!" (And decades before there was anything resembling "boating traffic").

The first "floating-home cruiser" appeared to me wrapped up with vinyl and canvas against the May 1992, cold. Those appearances may likely roughly coincide with the rapid erosion of my property's shoreline, widening of marina slips, additions of pumpout stations, expansions of dock-overnighting conveniences, and perhaps new IRS rules that encouraged the cruiser-as-home loophole.

[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?

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

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

Yep, anything bigger than what I have (25 feet) and anything faster than what I have (around 50 MPH) is too big and too fast, IMO, otherwise I'd have a bigger and faster boat. I'm just against legislation that tells me or anyone else what's too big or too fast.

I have no desire to cross giant wakes or listen to loud boats (though I have to admit I enjoy watching a really fast boat go by, quietly). I'm not at all frightened by other boats at speed. I would not be frightened even if fast boats were over-represented in boat collision statistics. I'm a real daredevil that way.

It would not be necessary to alter the entire lake shoreline, only problem areas, most of which are likely not natural anyway. You really think all those little beaches in front of all those houses are natural? I don't. I know the one in front of the place I rent isn't natural. It's also sloped perfectly to really funnel runoff into the lake. The natural shore on either side of it deals perfectly with waves/wakes, even huge ones from big cruisers going by at plowing speed; the same wakes that bounce my boat all over the place at the dock. I wish they would not do that, but we can't legislate common sense. I do prepare for it though. Fenders and well-placed docklines do wonders.

[Gavia immer]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

In what way can the shoreline be altered to protect against wake/wake erosion?

Drop "Full Pond" by 12 inches.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by jrc

"...We have no life history or point of reference on what is bad about a big boat.

Just yesterday, a lone "express cruiser" left my area at about 25-MPH, creating a wake that shook my permanent dock (with me on it), and soaked the shoreline.

A cruiser towing a skier once knocked my small boat on its transom: opening the throttle only slowed my backwards plunge to a full swamping. Since then, I see what's bad about big boats every summer weekend, if not every summer day.

With gas prices slowing down the big boats, it's only going to get worse; moreover, their appetite for gas will keep demand for marina gasoline—and marina gas prices—high. What does that do for middle-America's family boater?

Originally Posted by jrc

"...Any safety issue is very tenuous and hard for non-boaters to grasp...There are no obvious victims..."

That's The Problem: cruisers leave an unsafe—and anonymous—calling card behind in their wake!

Originally Posted by jrc

"...It directly bans a very popular boating community..."

But not as popular as "Middle America's" family boating community....

This advertisement caught my eye:
1) It has a dog featured (always catchy), and a catchy caption.
2) It's sponsored by NAMMI—a boat-manufacturer's association.
3) NAMMI bemoans that Americans are leaving boating in droves, and offers a "Discover Boating" Compact Disk, free of charge.

(Discover boating? )


Caption: "Dogs Need Weekends, too".

Originally Posted by jrc

"...It will not have the support of the lake industry..."

At one time, having tobacco smoke in restaurants was all the rage. (Pardon the expression. )

Fay's would probably like to see the wake-makers phased out. (Pardon the expression. )

Originally Posted by jrc

"...A Winnipesaukee size limit would naturally have to apply to all smaller lakes, so this affects everyone..."

The serious wake-makers aren't going to small lakes: they're going to move to the ocean, where they are the more appropriate vessel.

Originally Posted by jrc

"...No restaurant chain will dare offend such a huge, rich customer base..."

It would be terrible to offend the rich by doing the right thing.

Originally Posted by jrc

"...The vast majority of boaters will reject it, because we all dream of getting a bigger boat someday.

You're dreaming if you think that gasoline prices (much less gasoline availability) won't determine the size of future boat wakes. There will be more wake issues as the gas-guzzlers slow down.

Originally Posted by jrc

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

Lakewater quality, the raised consciousness of the Winnipesaukee boater, serious injuries, shoreline erosion, other wake damages, and subsequent wake headlines on this residential lake will determine that.

[masssteve]

We've been vacationing here for over 25 years. I remember seeing thousands of boats sized around 17-20 feet every time we went out, it seemed to be the norm. Seeing a 30 plus foot cruiser or a speed boat always caught your eye because it was only a few times a day. So when I bought our 21 footer I thought it would fit out needs, and for the most part it does! I have nothing against larger boats. I just can't afford anything larger then our 21 foot bowrider. 2 Saturdays ago there we were coming our of the Weirs channel, with around 50 boats in site, I was the smallest one! Headway speed I thought was 6 miles per hour. There are always a few clueless skippers in 30 plus boats going 15-20 mph within 50 feet all sides of me. Again, I have nothing against larger boats, I would just like to be able to make it from the Weirs channel to eagle island without getting swamped and fearing for my family's well being. When I'm boating, I always keep aware of smaller boats and either slow down or keep my distance, same with sailboats and shoreline for that matter. I would just like the same courtesy.

See you on the water

[pirkaus]

Common sense isn't very common.
Boater safety could be taken one step farther, and require a driving test just like a car. The bigger the boat or higher the horsepower the harder the test. Simmular to a commercial driving test you are lisenced for a length and horse power. You can go smaller but not larger.
It's not the boat, it's the operator that is the main problem.

[jeffk]

I don't think its just a matter of size/horsepower. For example, the first time I took my PWC out for a literal spin, I realized its maneuverability and acceleration would require me to master a new set of boating skills if I wasn't going to be a danger to myself or others. Different classes of water craft, even unpowered ones, have handling behaviors, safety issues, and other information to learn so that you can be a good and safe boater.

I think it would be a good step to require some practical demonstration of skills before allowing water access but I also believe that with the likely impact on visiting boaters such a requirement would be almost impossible to impose. Too bad.

[pirkaus]

I never said it would be practical or easy. The only way it could work is if all states were to do it.
Even if this happened it would not elliminate stupid.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by pirkaus

... It's not the boat, it's the operator that is the main problem.

There is truth in what you say. But I think the main problem is the number, size and speed of boats. The lake is to small for the any size and speed mentality we have.

Look at the old pictures of Shep Browns and other marinas. Forty years ago the standard "speed boat" or "ski boat" as they were called, was an aluminum outboard with a steering wheel, and small windshield. They where light and cheap, around 16 to 20 feet long.

Twenty years ago they were mostly fiberglass, a lot of I/O, 18 to 21 foot bow riders. Now many are big, heavy, expensive and high power.

And while you are correct that the operators are a big problem, there really is no way to fix the operators. Education is great for most people, but the problem operator doesn't listen and doesn't care.

The only effective way to stop him is to ban the type of boat he likes from the lake. And since the type of boat he likes are the ones that pollute, intimidate, erode etc. that makes it a win win solution.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Islander

There is truth in what you say. But I think the main problem is the number, size and speed of boats. The lake is to small for the any size and speed mentality we have.

Now many are big, heavy, expensive and high power.

The only effective way to stop him is to ban the type of boat he likes from the lake. And since the type of boat he likes are the ones that pollute, intimidate, erode etc. that makes it a win win solution.

Are you sure...

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by masssteve

Again, I have nothing against larger boats, I would just like to be able to make it from the Weirs channel to eagle island without getting swamped and fearing for my family's well being. When I'm boating, I always keep aware of smaller boats and either slow down or keep my distance, same with sailboats and shoreline for that matter. I would just like the same courtesy.

See you on the water

I avoid that area on weekends. Yuck. Ever thought about staying on the wrong side of FL1 and going under the Governor's Island bridge rather than to FL2? I don't think there's anything in the water to stop a 21 foot boat from passing FL1 on the south side. Alternatively, you could go up the west shore of Meredith Bay to Maiden Lady Cove and then make a beeline for FL44, either way, you'd be skipping the whole mess between the channel and FL2, you'd probably use less gas, and you'd become part of the solution (not to imply that you are part of the problem, but one less boat wake is still one less boat wake in an area loaded with them). Just some alternatives. Sad to say, I doubt you'll get any courtesy in that area of the lake.

I have no idea what Weirs Beach was like yesterday, but the rest of the lake was shockingly dead for a gorgeous June Sunday Saw a few bone head moves, but nothing outstanding until we were headed home with the boat on the trailer. Motorcycle week seems to bring out the worst motorcyclist behavior and the loudest bikes.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by dave r

I have no idea what Weirs Beach was like yesterday, but the rest of the lake was shockingly dead for a gorgeous June Sunday.

The Weirs channel was not bad at all, I thought it was much less congested than the average summer weekend. The rest of the lake seemed unusually quiet. Not that I am complaining...

[MAINLANDER]

Everyone must have stayed off the water for fear of speeding boats and huge wakes.

[Mee-n-Mac]

I'll echo codeman. Boat traffic was pretty light* and the line for slips @ the Weirs was maybe 3 or so boats deep on Sun afternoon. Less that normal for a July or August weekend for sure. Road traffic was higher than a normal weekend. Even in Alton I'd wait to get across Rt11 .... best to go by boat or not go I say !


*except for the sailboats becalmed right by the Witches channel.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

Drop "Full Pond" by 12 inches.

That's brilliant. Wish I thought of it. Only caveat would be that folks with marginally shallow docks would be even worse off.

[Gatto Nero]

Originally Posted by Dave R

That's brilliant. Wish I thought of it. Only caveat would be that folks with marginally shallow docks would be even worse off.

Naw, They'd just have more frontage. Of course their taxes would need to be raised accordingly.