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

[Gatto Nero]

Originally Posted by Islander

Most islanders did not "choose" island life, but love it and will not leave it.

Where did you find that stat?

[The Real BigGuy]

It starts talking about wakes and moves to who is entitled to what!!!

First, I'm an islander. I don't think I'm entitled to anything that everyone else isn't entitled to. When I bought, I knew what I was in for and went in with my eyes open.

Now wakes. I'm getting realy tired of people asking for laws to change what is happening around and on the lake. The plain and simple truth is that we have more then enough laws to control the issues. It comes down to enforcement. Until the MP makes a concentrated effort to enforce existing laws on speed, wake damage, no wake zones, 150' passing distances, noise, etc. nothing will get better.

We have a new speed law. Great. What good will it due if it isn't enforced, and I don't think it is enforcable.

Until operators (not boats) are severly fined and boat registrations start getting revoked the problem will not start to abate.

We tried education - can anyone really say that boater education and licenseing has improved how boats are operated? I can't. Those that operated responsibly before licensing still do and those who didn't still don't.

It is really sad but frankly, there are a lot of people out there who only care about themselves with very little compassion and empathy for others.

Unfortunately, it has become an "all about me" world that we live in and I for one have little hope that it will ever change.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy

It starts talking about wakes and moves to who is entitled to what!!!

First, I'm an islander. I don't think I'm entitled to anything that everyone else isn't entitled to. When I bought, I knew what I was in for and went in with my eyes open.

Now wakes. I'm getting realy tired of people asking for laws to change what is happening around and on the lake. The plain and simple truth is that we have more then enough laws to control the issues. It comes down to enforcement. Until the MP makes a concentrated effort to enforce existing laws on speed, wake damage, no wake zones, 150' passing distances, noise, etc. nothing will get better.

We have a new speed law. Great. What good will it due if it isn't enforced, and I don't think it is enforcable.

Until operators (not boats) are severly fined and boat registrations start getting revoked the problem will not start to abate.

We tried education - can anyone really say that boater education and licenseing has improved how boats are operated? I can't. Those that operated responsibly before licensing still do and those who didn't still don't.

It is really sad but frankly, there are a lot of people out there who only care about themselves with very little compassion and empathy for others.

Unfortunately, it has become an "all about me" world that we live in and I for one have little hope that it will ever change.

If you believe there is a problem, and current methods are not working, then why can't we change the laws?

For the sake of argument, how about a law that places a 500 horsepower limit on Winni effective 1/1/2013 - exceptions for commercial passenger vessels etc.

I think this ends the not enforceable argument. And boat owners have more than 5 years to make the change.

I understand that many will say this is unfair or unnecessary, But it will end the GFBL and big wave situation. If you pass this I don't think a speed limit will be necessary.

Most important it will change the direction this lake is going in. These kinds of changes are coming, it's only a matter of time.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

For the sake of argument, how about a law that places a 500 horsepower limit on Winni effective 1/1/2013 - exceptions for commercial passenger vessels etc.

Unless this is a per engine limit (which would limit a select few boats) the outcome of something like this could be disastrous in the economy. It could potentially put most of the dealers on the lake in serious shape or out if business. Take Irwin for instance, they do not sell performance boats but do move many day cruisers or yachts. How would this affect their sales? How would it affect the tourist industry? How would it affect your tax bill? Your property value? Do you think that your house would be worth more? I think you would see a serious decline...

I would venture to say that half if not 2/3 of the boats at GYC would have to go, the same with Mountain View and many other marinas. People that dump tons of money into the local economies would be forced out. Remember that. This is a much bigger threat to the Lakes region than a speed limit.

Would I love to see the big wakes go? After seeing my 23' boat get tossed violently at my dock last weekend by a cruiser I would like a change. A NWZ would do it being that it is a tight area to begin with. I do not see banning cruisers is the answer though.

[Islander]

Sign me up for 500 hp.

There can be an exception for boats already on the lake. That way nobody needs to sell or move. But the numbers of boats and maximum size will not increase. And eventually, through attrition, most will go.

GYC can slowly transition to an increased number of smaller slips.

This will make my property worth more as the negative aspects of the lake are removed.

[Woodsy]

Perhaps the state should take all of the islands and waterfront property back thru eminent domain? Then we will eliminate 90% of the people who complain. Sure it will take some time 10 years or so and cost 4-5 Billion, but eventually all of those people who complain will have cashed out and relocated.... and the lake can be restored to its natural state.

How's that sound for ridiculous??

Woodsy

[Islander]

Woodsy

Because you don't like it does not make it ridiculous. It's easy to enact, simple to enforce and, unlike your idea, costs nothing.

The only real obstacle will be the marine industry lobby. I think you see the lake as an endless resource. More boats, more speed more pollution... no problem!

There are groups that think all power boats should be banned on the lake. That goes to far in my opinion. But something must be done and will be done. The worm has turned, you just can't see it yet.

Watch the Ellen Degeneress commercial, the desire of a few for more speed and even bigger boats will not stand up against that in the long run.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Perhaps the state should take all of the islands and waterfront property back thru eminent domain? Then we will eliminate 90% of the people who complain. Sure it will take some time 10 years or so and cost 4-5 Billion, but eventually all of those people who complain will have cashed out and relocated.... and the lake can be restored to its natural state.

How's that sound for ridiculous??

Woodsy

Sorry Woodsy, but I'm willing to bet that non-waterfront owner's complaints about the lake outnumber waterfront owners complaints by at least 2 to 1. A simply tally from these forums would prove that. If you were really serious about returning the lake to its natural state you would also advocate for no boats also.

Don't lump me or many other Waterfront owners in with these other whiners.

[Sunbeam lodge]

I agree. The Sophie C wake is bigger than the Mt. Washgington wake. whenever it slows down to deliver mail at Beaver Island we get a large swell that tears up our beach.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Islander

There are groups that think all power boats should be banned on the lake. That goes to far in my opinion. But something must be done and will be done. The worm has turned, you just can't see it yet.

Watch the Ellen Degeneress commercial, the desire of a few for more speed and even bigger boats will not stand up against that in the long run.

Huh? Why does "something" have to be done? I guess I just don't see wakes as much of a problem considering there are things like wars, violent crime, corruption, and terrorism going on.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Huh? Why does "something" have to be done? I guess I just don't see wakes as much of a problem considering there are things like wars, violent crime, corruption, and terrorism going on.

Should we wait until war, crime, corruption and terrorism have been eliminated before we fix the lakes problems? That will be quite a wait!

However we are not just talking about large wakes, they are just one part of the problem. Pollution, excessive speed, noise, boating deaths, water quality, property values and quality of life will also be improved by a horsepower limit.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

For the sake of argument, how about a law that places a 500 horsepower limit on Winni effective 1/1/2013 - exceptions for commercial passenger vessels etc.

I think this ends the not enforceable argument.

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.

[Gavia immer]

Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy

Until the MP makes a concentrated effort to enforce existing laws on speed, wake damage, no wake zones, 150' passing distances, noise, etc. nothing will get better.

It is really sad but frankly, there are a lot of people out there who only care about themselves with very little compassion and empathy for others.

You've hit the nail on the head there.

[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.

[Silver Duck]

Thanks, Outlaw! And thanks to you, too, Skip, for clarifying the legal aspects of the situation (as you so often do for us!)

Island Lover, I'm going to startle you a bit. Now that you've clarified your stance to needing special accomodations such as ample town parking and public docks, I'm with you 100%. Island residents contribute a ton of money to the lakefront towns as real estate taxes; since you're beyond the reach of most town services, parking and docks seem little enough to ask for in return and you folks darned well deserve to get something for your tax money!

Now, as to the 500 HP limit, that might actually be counter productive with respect to wake size; let me explain my thinking on this.

First, please realize that, for most cruiser owners our boats are our lake homes, and we're just as passionately attached to them as real estate owners and for the very same reasons. We love the lake as much as anybody else (and actually live more closely with it than most!)

OK, let's set that aside for a bit to simmer.

The reason that some of the sedan-type cruisers push the large wakes that upset everybody (including me, when these turkeys send my swim platform through a two foot arc with me on it ) is purely and simply that they aren't going fast enough to be up on a good plane and are plowing through the water, rather than skimming over it.

In some cases, the operators probably aren't aware of the relationship between getting up on a solid plane and reducing wake size ; in other cases, the boats are underpowered and simply incapable of achieving a good, solid plane .

In either case, the large wake results from the fact that they are plowing, not planing. (You might take cold comfort, as I do, in the fact that under those conditions and at today's gas prices, those boats are moving financial hemhorages; somewhere between 1/4 and 1/2 mpg is a reasonable estimate! I also comfort myself that Captain Bonehead is truly beating the living heck out of his boat's engines under those conditions!)

Now, to merge the two thought tracks, if a 500 HP limit (truly, not enough to push a good sized cruiser onto a good plane) were to be imposed, people who love having cruisers as lake homes are just going to either buy new ones with legal sized engines or repower with smaller, legal sized engines.

Which is only going to result in more boats that can only plow through the water pushing a large wake, not get up on plane quickly and skim nicely over it leaving a reasonable wake.

Actually, equating large wakes with large gas bills should be an easy, useful, and utterly inarguable idea for WinnFabs to educate folks about, if they care to take on the project.

Granting that Captain Bonehead and his relatives sometimes aren't very big on courtesy, almost everybody cares about the contents their wallet!

Silver Duck

[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...

[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.

[Gavia immer]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

Now, to merge the two thought tracks, if a 500 HP limit (truly, not enough to push a good sized cruiser onto a good plane) were to be imposed, people who love having cruisers as lake homes are just going to either buy new ones with legal sized engines or repower with smaller, legal sized engines. Which is only going to result in more boats that can only plow through the water pushing a large wake, not get up on plane quickly and skim nicely over it leaving a reasonable wake.

What's a reasonable cruiser wake for Lake Winnipesaukee?

[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.

[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

[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 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.

[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.....

[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.

[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

[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"?

[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.

[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.

[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....

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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...

[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.

[Coastal Laker]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

I think you may have missed the point. We are talking about CHANGING the legal requirement. Lots of lakes limit boat size with horsepower limits. I would have preferred that over speed limits as it kills two birds with one stone.

And the only people that NEED to use boats are us islanders.

How big is to big? That's easy, any boat bigger than mine is to big.

WOW.... I'm a bit behind in forum activities and am just now getting caught up again. Now I remember why I haven't been on the forum for a while!

This whole thing about needing boats is interesting. I absolutey NEED my boat for my own mental wellness.

I suppose you need to travel via boat to get to an island but you don't need to own a boat to do that. I've been asked more than once to bring people to their island homes because they don't have anything more than a canoe. Those same folks stay on their island all summer except for occasional visits to the "mainland" to stock up on supplies again. That's the sort of thing that the Winni taxi was great for. I have indeed met some people who like island living but not boat ownership!

[Island Lover]

I didn't say I needed to own a boat. It says in the quote you picked "NEED to use". If I take the water taxi I am using a boat. If you give me a ride I am using YOUR boat.

In this context a canoe is a boat.

How do I get to or from the island without a boat?

[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".

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I think the erosion the DES is most concerned with is rain water carrying stuff from "long" distances. It's not the erosion, per se, they worry about, it's the non-lake stuff that's carried into the lake that bothers them.

IMHO, DES should worry about all those things, but here's what Science News wrote about runoff—excerpted:

"...On the green space that's left, even small amounts of traffic—tractors, golf carts, lawn movers, mere human footfalls—can compress the soil and reduce the rate at which it absorbs precipitation. As an environment becomes inhabited, therefore, less precipitation soaks into the ground, and runoff increases. As a result, floods occur more often and develop more rapidly.

The hydrological changes, along with the pollutants picked up by the water as it pours across the urban landscape can wreak havoc on aquatic ecosystems and damage habitats alongside waterways..."

[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.

[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

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Dave R

"...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..."

Irony: Laid back could have described Lake Winnipesaukee 20 years ago.

He's since moved away from Long Lake's mayhem in Maine, but here's what that lakeside resident wrote at this forum:

"...The lakes have become the last great lawless frontier. In Maine...there are less wardens with IFW today then there were twenty years ago..." http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...2&postcount=92

Question: In 20 years, should Winnipesaukee's lakeside residents be championing the same causes for Maine's unlimited lake speeds, ocean-racers, heavy cruisers, law-non-enforcements, erosion, and exhaust noise for your chosen neighborhood?

BTW: Yesterday's boat average size was considerably larger than what has been described as "typical-boat sizes". I saw two bass boats (the smallest, at about 19-feet), and dozens of boats 21' to 36-feet long. When the rental season gets started, the average lengths will likely decrease. And in the spirit of what MAXUM stated, what used to be the normal-sized boat will get hammered.

[Islander]

Dave R

You object to the idea that we need limits. And you don't think the lake is becoming more hectic.

At the same time you are making plans to move to another lake, because it is "more laid back" than Winnipesaukee.

No problem, you move north and start polluting another pristine lake. We will stay here and try to clean up the mess you made.

[wildwoodfam]

one I hadn't thought of - until recently - BUT - since this is the Winnipesaukee Forum and the conversations here are supposedly about Winnipesaukee, I wonder - HOW MANY of us on here posting concerns, etc...actually a) own a home on Winni, b) boat on Winni, c) use Winni for our recreational gains every summer....and HOW MANY posters to this site do not? I am not saying one needs to live, boat or recreate on Winni to post!

I would be interested in learning how many people on this forum actually live and/ or play here on Winni?!

I am happy to start - I have lived and boated on Winni since my earliest recollections, the 1960's - first at the family's place on Paugus Bay, which had been in the family sine the 30's, then we all moved over to Center Harbor - mom and dad have since moved to a souther nh lake to be closer to their home - but my family summers on LI. I have been boating "solo" on Winni - since 1978 when I first took my uncles boat on a solo trek around Paugus and through the channel out to the main lake! We also own lakefrontage on another lake in NH and our extended family has property and frontage on Champlain in VT and the seacoast in MA. I have a 20 foot runabout, a canoe, and 14' row boat. All registered in NH and all on Winni.

My recollection of boating on the lake in the 60's and 70's was that when were were out on the lake and spotted a cruiser - my dad or uncle knew exactly WHO the skipper was - seemingly because there were not that many of them out there at the time - but some of them in the 60's and 70's were just as big and grand as the ones on here today!

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Islander

Dave R

You object to the idea that we need limits. And you don't think the lake is becoming more hectic.

At the same time you are making plans to move to another lake, because it is "more laid back" than Winnipesaukee.

No problem, you move north and start polluting another pristine lake. We will stay here and try to clean up the mess you made.

I do not object to necessary limits. Thus far, limits have proven to be utterly unnecessary, except for shorefront development.

The lake is far less hectic this year than I have ever seen it for this time of year, I've been coming here for more than 30 years. Two gorgeous Sundays in a row and the lake was practically deserted. Last year was quiet, this year is even quieter, so far.

Never said I was moving there BECAUSE it was more laid back; just that it IS more laid back (fairly safe assumption you made there though...), and it's where I happen to have property. It's not just the boating that's more laid back either, it's the general feel of the whole area, especially the traffic on the roads. People are friendlier and there's no bike week to endure.

I boat on Winnipesaukee a lot because it's near where I live, I know it well, have lots of friends there and it's a wonderful place to be. I choose when and where I boat and am not limited to one place just because I have property there.

I don't contribute to the pollution anywhere near as much as a typical shorefront property owner. I operate my boat in a fully legal manner. My boat is in a perfect state of tune, does not leak any oil, has a functional head that gets used, has its gray water overboard drains disconnected, and I rarely buy gas on the lake (no gas spills). I also clean and wax the boat on the trailer, not in the water.

When you are at your lakefront home, do you have a direct view of the water, or is your view obscured by brush and growth? Do you have a beach? Do you have a dock or a boat house? Do you have a path that leads to the water? Do you have a septic system? Any of these things can impact runoff into the lake and will have a much greater impact than a boat running along the surface or at anchor; or sitting on a trailer 50 miles away, 325 days of the year, .

[Gavia immer]

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.

Whitecapped, rolling wakes from cruisers can make a dock "too shallow".

Putting too large a boat at a dock can also make any dock "too shallow".