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

[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.

[SweetCraft]

Don't waste your time/energy.... these are same "gang" of posters that beat up every other poster who doesn't agree with their views. Once you express a concern for the lake, its future and protecting it you are immediately a snob, elitest, liberal , Democrat, land baron, tree hugger, green party member, communist..... this happens every year whether its speed limits or the environment. Join the rest of us that want to do actual WORK to protect the lake and keep it pristine for future generations. Why? Because its THE RIGHT THING TO DO. I wish we had room for all the boats and all the world to use it. God knows I LOVE a party . But we don't .... a limited resource will eventually need to limit access unfortunately to be protected. BIG Boats (Wakes) and yes probably lawns, fertizilers, clear cutting into the hill side, new houses, septics etc will be legislated further and part of the solution as they do the most damage. It sucks sometimes but that its reality in an ever crowed world. Stop "attacking" and start coming up with solutions?????

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by SweetCraft

Don't waste your time/energy.... these are same "gang" of posters that beat up every other poster who doesn't agree with their views. Once you express a concern for the lake, its future and protecting it you are immediately a snob, elitest, liberal , Democrat, land baron, tree hugger, green party member, communist..... this happens every year whether its speed limits or the environment. Join the rest of us that want to do actual WORK to protect the lake and keep it pristine for future generations. Why? Because its THE RIGHT THING TO DO. I wish we had room for all the boats and all the world to use it. God knows I LOVE a party . But we don't .... a limited resource will eventually need to limit access unfortunately to be protected. BIG Boats (Wakes) and yes probably lawns, fertizilers, clear cutting into the hill side, new houses, septics etc will be legislated further and part of the solution as they do the most damage. It sucks sometimes but that its reality in an ever crowed world. Stop "attacking" and start coming up with solutions?????

Just so you know, the lake association I proudly belong to has gone to great lengths, at great individual cost, to preserve the natural riparian buffers along the 1000 feet of shoreline we originally bought. Additionally we purchased (at even greater cost) an additional 1000 feet of neighboring shoreline that's also preserved in it's natural state and will remain so. We've also facilitated the process of putting 5000+ acres of woodland in trust so that it can never be developed. So, we've collectively saved 2000 feet of pristine shoreline and 5000+ acres of woods from future development. I practice what I preach; what have you done?

There's plenty of room on the lake. How often and where do you cruise on Winnipesaukee?

[ITD]

I think those who think there are too many boats on the lake should keep their boat out of the water. Stay home. That would be the non-hypocritical thing to do.

[MAINLANDER]

Seams to me that boat traffic has been down for all of last year and up to now this year there has not been much traffic at all. Nothing at all like five or so years ago. IMHO.

[Gavia immer]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Just so you know, the lake association I proudly belong to has gone to great lengths, at great individual cost, to preserve the natural riparian buffers along the 1000 feet of shoreline we originally bought. Additionally we purchased (at even greater cost) an additional 1000 feet of neighboring shoreline that's also preserved in it's natural state and will remain so. We've also facilitated the process of putting 5000+ acres of woodland in trust so that it can never be developed. So, we've collectively saved 2000 feet of pristine shoreline and 5000+ acres of woods from future development. I practice what I preach; what have you done?

There's plenty of room on the lake.

If Winnipesaukee was a round lake of 72 Square miles, I would agree. But the irregular shoreline keeps boats at least 150' or more off shore. Think of Alton Bay, and include the same "barrier" around each of the 253 islands. Except for the Broads, sight distance is impaired in many places.

I don't recall if PWCs have the same limit. Even on some lakes bigger than Winnipesaukee, at 600 feet from shore it's headway speed only for PWCs.

Although associations result in a much higher concentration of people, your association should be applauded for its actions in protecting lakewater quality. I recall that New York City bought a billion dollars worth of forest in the upper Hudson River Basin to keep their drinking water pristine, and the city's water has a deserved worldwide reputation for quality. Towns in addition to Laconia will be drawing from the lake in the future.

What is the difference between "in trust", and "preserved in it's natural state and will remain so"? Is your association on Lake Winnipesaukee?

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

What is the difference between "in trust", and "preserved in it's natural state and will remain so"? Is your association on Lake Winnipesaukee?

In trust means that the control of the land is given to a board of trustees who are chartered with protecting the land but cannot sell it. I'm not sure why this is necessary, but I suspect it's for tax purposes. The end result is that it protects a large watershed area from ever being developed and that helps protect the lake we are on, and everything downstream (which includes Sebago Lake, Portland's drinking water).

We are not on Winnipesaukee, the property is in the lakes region of Maine. This is an area my wife and I fell in love with about 19 years ago, and spend a lot of time in. We plan to retire there eventually. It's a bit more laid back than the lakes region of NH and really close to some great skiing.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by SweetCraft

Don't waste your time/energy.... these are same "gang" of posters that beat up every other poster who doesn't agree with their views. Once you express a concern for the lake, its future and protecting it you are immediately a snob, elitest, liberal , Democrat, land baron, tree hugger, green party member, communist..... this happens every year whether its speed limits or the environment. Join the rest of us that want to do actual WORK to protect the lake and keep it pristine for future generations. Why? Because its THE RIGHT THING TO DO. I wish we had room for all the boats and all the world to use it. God knows I LOVE a party . But we don't .... a limited resource will eventually need to limit access unfortunately to be protected. BIG Boats (Wakes) and yes probably lawns, fertizilers, clear cutting into the hill side, new houses, septics etc will be legislated further and part of the solution as they do the most damage. It sucks sometimes but that its reality in an ever crowed world. Stop "attacking" and start coming up with solutions?????

If history repeats itself...

Governor's Island in background, 1929...

Here's an idea, the membership of Island Marina Assoc. donates the proerty to a conservation group, after eliminating all evidence of a marina, as unihabited land.

How's that for reality taking a bite?

[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