Not just the operator...
 

Unfortunately it is more than just the operator. These deep hull , heavy cabin cruisers 30 plus feet are just too big for this lake and displace too much water getting up and off plane even when properly operated. Thats the bottomline unfortunately. You wouldn't have a certain size boat in your bath tub.... there just too big. We will need to limit the size and number soon. Its coming. Sorry for the bad news.

In the case of the Manatu that I mentioned above I really don't think it has much to do with the operator. That boat has a displacement hull so it's never going to plane out, no matter what the captain does, so it's always going to leave a huge wake at cruising speed. For the record, I'd don't much care about the size of the wakes as they don't cause me any problems. Now if someone would please get the wind to ease up............ :rolleye2:

You need a bigger boat! ;)

Your opinion, which of course you are entitled to, and with which I happen to disagree. The fact is, people are entitled to have whatever kind of boat they want on the lake. Provided it meets legal requirements of course.

BTW, the operator chooses when, where and how (tabs, etc.) to get on plane. They choose whether or not to do it in a courteous and responsible manner.

What do you propose we do? Ban all boats over a certain length or displacement or hull configuration (planning vs displacement)? Shades of an all too familiar debate of the past on a similar topic.

What is too big?
 

Ok, so the question begs to be asked:

In all of our minds, what is too big of a boat?

what's too big?
 

easy: "the next size up"

Well, we can ban the GF boats, cruisers, then smaller boats who aren't on plane too close to the shore. How can we ban the wind, which does a pretty good number on shorelines?

Oh, Lordy, they're at it again!
 

I've been waiting for this since certain of the "No performance boats" crowd made it clear a couple of years ago that cruisers were to be their next target.

So far as I'm concerned, the question which truly begs to be asked is where some folks get off thinking that their convenience in enjoying Lake Winnipesaukee in their chosen manner outweighs the ability of other folks to enjoy the lake in a diferent way. :rolleye1:

Seaplane Pilot, since you saw fit to start this discussion with a reference to a non-Winnipesaukee incident, I'll counter by referring to the recent collision down in Louisiana between a seaplane and a small boat. Since seaplanes undeniably have litttle ability to manouver to avoid a collision once they're up on step during takeoff or have irrevocably committed to a landing, it could justifiably be said that at, certain times, they constitute a menace to navigation and boater safety.

Nobody really needs the convenience of being able land on the lake and taxi up to their dock; for folks who want to fly in, their plane could land at the Laconia airport. (It could easily be said that airplanes belong in an airport, the way that some folks are saying the cruisers belong in the ocean.) Perhaps seaplanes should be banned from Winnipesaukee for the safety of all? :confused: (No? Didn't think so. :D)

Now, as I recall, the cruisers in that link were in a no wake area and, if they were on Winnipesaukee, would have been too close to the other boats to be above now wake speeds to boot. (I suspect that they must have been related to Captain Bonehead. ;)) Here, I fully agree that anybody who operates their boat in an unsafe manner needs to be caught, fined, and, if they won't learn from that experience, lose their right to operate a boat on the lake. But, for heaven's sake, penalize the operator, not everybody who owns the same kind of boat!

Silver Duck

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.

That presupposes that you NEED to have island property. I assume you want it, as do people who want larger boats.

My solution is that we drain the lake and make everyone happy :) No more worries over speed limits, boat sizes, McMansions, fertilizers, etc. Problem solved.

I know - I'm thinking of bumping up a little bit in size. May pull the trigger next year. With gas prices as they are, I'd prefer to deal with a smaller package with a cheaper daily operating cost.

What do you really need, or is it want????
 

There are only two things in life anyone absolutely NEEDS, food and shelter. The rest are wants and desires we all indulge in based on our financial and emotional abilities. You don't need an island property, you don't need a boat of any kind or size, you don't need to come to Lake Winnipesaukee, all of these are choices we make and every choice has a trade off.

I suppose if you take the island property and the absolute need for a boat to the extreme, than an inflatable muscle power (paddling) boat would suffice the requirement, thus eliminating all potential for complaints and concerns; no pollution, no motors, no wakes, no nothing.

It is entirely possible to limit size, but what you can not limit is the size of the already "existing" boats on the lake. This would more than likely fall under a grandfather clause like many of the improvements and changes around our beautiful lake; permanent docks of certain sizes, cutting of trees, building new homes often fall under a grandfather clause when there was an existing structure, septic and well placement.....the list goes on.

Winni has become an increasingly desirable destination for many people over the last decade and more people means more traffic, not only on the roads but on the water as well. The driving habits of individuals on the road are the same habits exhibited on the water.

And don't forget, for many people with cabin crusiers, these are their second homes, it's one way to be able to afford water front property

I think this is one instance where "size doesn't matter". :rolleye2:

Well said
 

Outlaw I agree. Isn't it strange that quite a few people complained about the seat belt law and how the government was sticking their noses in our personal freedom? Now it seems we want the goverment to limit the size of boats on the lake. Be careful what you ask for. Perhaps they would like the size of our vehicles mandated. We can get along driving a car that goes 0-70 in under an hour with no air conditioner and an AM radio.

You and I frequent the same cabin cruiser website where complaints between GFBLs and cabin cruisers are frequent. (And where the seaplane crash was referenced.)

Just this month at that site, the cabin cruisers are complaining of noisy, late-night, high-speed runs by GFBLs through no-wake zones where the cruiser types are sleeping. The GFBLs state "their legal right" to boat in anything they want to, and that their wakes are small. The cabin cruisers complain about fishermen, kayakers, and Jet-Skis in narrow channels. The GFBLs state wakes left by cruisers at any planing speed are a hazard to them, and that cruisers ignore no-wake zones until inside their marinas.

When I opened my Popular Science magazine this month, I found a full-page ad for "Discover Boating".

What a strange ad, I thought—who needs to "discover" boating :confused: .

The site is sponsored nationally by NMMA (American boat builders) who are seeing an increasing rejection of family boating by Americans! :eek:

"Entitlement" seems to be an issue: Winnipesaukee boaters with long memories remember when none of these issues were prominent.

The bottom line is that a few "excessive boats" are ruining boating for many—and not just here.

:(

There, I corrected the wording for you... I love it when you show your true colors, Senators and Representatives, look above at what the speed limit debate is really about.

Lost waterfront
 

I estimate 10' of my waterfront has been lost to shorefront erosion in recent years----at least since the last survey. I wonder if all islanders have the same result and how much our appraisals might be reduced if land lost is accounted for. :laugh: Wouldn't apply to mainland waterfronts in the same fashion, of course. :emb:

Although I thought it was offensive, I had to laugh when I read the words you changed in the quote. Look more closely at the islands (the ones not connected to the mainland by bridges). Most of the house are run down little cottages (present company included) and our boats are usually old and smallish. We're not calling anyone riff-raff.

Sorry, but you are absolutely wrong. My island home is the only home I own, it IS my shelter. I live here most of the year, it is my legal address. Therefore I NEED it under your own definition.

If I have given the impression that islanders have more rights than others to boat on Winnipesaukee, then I have done my job well. We Do!

And the Department of safety has enacted horsepower limits on many lakes. There is no grandfathering, you have to take your boat somewhere else. The department posts a list of lakes with speed and horsepower limits. If you read it you will find no consideration for existing boats.

When size limits come the opposition will do well to argue "what size" instead of "no limits". The speed limit opposition could easily have convinced the proponents to go with a higher limit, but they went with "no limits" and "live free or die" and now they have lost.

By the way, please obey the SPEED LIMIT when you go by Bear Island.

Lost Shore Frontage
 

Actually, snowbird the frontage could increase while the depth decreases, and we all know that property onn the lake is valued by number of shore feet. Stay with my logic OK? If the frontage is straight now and it erodes into the shoreline in a scalloped shape the actual shore frontage increases. Disecting a circle in half is a shorter distance than measuring the length of half the circumfrence. Don't mean to be a smart alec but it could be a silver lining.;) Of course the property will have little when your home washes away.

APS, well put. I've been boating here since 1958 (started in a 12' dory). There have always been large boats on this lake and there have always been fast boats on this lake (albeit neither in the numbers there are today). The difference then, IMO, was courtesy, common sense and respect.

I can't recall the last time I heard of a speeding GFBL going down the Weirs Channel... :rolleye2: Maybe elsewhere, not here...

Let's face it, this is about passing the buck. It always is. The GFBL's drive too fast or are too loud, the cabin cruisers make wake, the pwc dart around like flies annoying everyone, sail boats think they own the lake, paddlers do own the lake, the family boats don't know the rules of navigation...Unless all boats are banned this will NEVER go away. Is this what you want??? Maybe we should just go back to handmade birchbark canoes...


Very true. Could not have said it better myself. I am glad we agree on something finally... If this is truly your belief then why punish the remaining 99% of good, responsible boaters with speed limits or limitization of the type/size of boats they can own and operate. Stop the discrimination and fix the problem.

Continued from yesterday
 

Had to leave yesterday before finishing my comments (grand daughter's dance recital. :D )

First off, I'm not overly fond of large wakes either. Since the admiral and I weekend aboard our boat, I'm probably more inconvenienced by them than most (I doubt that many folks island or shorefront homes are actually tossed around by them. :eek: ) But, that's something that goes with the liveaboard lifestyle that we love, and the last thing I want to do is throw somebody else off the lake so my "home" won't bounce around.

I think that APS is on the right track; it seems that these days, there are way too many people (everywhere, not just on the lake) with an "I'm getting mine, and to heck with you" attitude. :( IMHO, that attitude is exemplified by both the cruiser operator who goes by with their boat squatting by the stern pushing a mound of water, and by folks who want to "hog the lake" by banishing any kind of boat they don't like!

Think back, peolpe. Over the last few years, we've had threads bashing and wanting to banish PWCs, then GFBLs, and now cruisers! :rolleye1: Seems like "my lake, and I'm not sharing with anyone that's not just like me" has become all too frequent a theme. :rolleye2:

I, for one, have become hyper-aware of my wake since the high water level threads pointed out shoreline vulnerability to large wakes, but not everybody reads this forum (more's the pity. :D ) A "consciousness raising" campaign is definitely in order, and Seaplane Pilot's "Wake Up - Wake Down" phrase is quite catchy; pehaps NHRBA could do something with it.

Perhaps that might even be asociated with a grassroots "Five Blasts for Courtesy" campaign where five horn blasts (the boating signal for danger or "I disagree with your intentions") could be used to signal displeasure with the way a boat is being operated. (Though, come to think of it, the resulting cacophony might tick some folks off worse than the wakes. :eek: )

As a comment to those who are complaining that their boats are tossed around at their docks, it is quite possible to secure them in a manner that keeps them safe if you make the effort; I know this from first hand experience.

A final note to shorefront property owners; it isn't realistic to expect to gain courtesy and consideration from somebody you're trying to throw off the lake....

Silver Duck

In your orignal post you had stated, island people are the only ones who need to use boats. This is the statement I am working from.

Needs are absolutes, wants are desires; you desire transportation between the island and other land masses. When I go to the store, I want to drive my car instead of walk, but I don't need a car, I have two legs as a mode of transportation, but I desire to make the trip easier with a motor vehicle. The argument that island property people need boats is unconvincing at best, if you desire to go to other land masses my original point of an inflatable boat suffices the desire.

All choices have trade off's and island living does have it's share of trade offs, especially if there are no bridges. Shelter is a need and you wanted island property so one trade off is the challenge of transportation to other land masses, but this does not constitute island property owners to have boats and no one else. In that case, I do not live on an island I can have the use of a motor vehicle and island people can not - do you see the insanity in that logic?

"Islanders have more rights", very comical. Next on the agenda is limiting the amount of people who can have island property, your logic tells us, in order for people to have a boat they have to have island property. Does the size of the island have an impact on the size of the boat one could have?

Outlaws quote "The argument that island property people need boats is unconvincing at best, if you desire to go to other land masses my original point of an inflatable boat suffices the desire."

Let's not get silly here. Obviously island residents need boats!

In the first place an inflatable boat is a boat. Secondly a ten mile row to get groceries is unworkable.

If I have a fire or medical emergency, do I NEED a boat, or just desire one?

Like Outlaw, few understand what it is like to live on an island. Outlaw claims all we need is food and shelter. However our shelter is on the island, and there is no food there. Therefore we need boats. On the mainland you can drive, walk, ride a bicycle, take a cab, hop a buss etc. On an island the only answer is a boat.

To most people when there is a lakewide no wake zone, this means no joy ride. To some islanders it means add an hour to every trip. And a late ice out means you can't get to your home.

To most people boats are pleasure craft, to us they are essential transportation. Much more important than having a car on the mainland.

The bottom line as I see it is that you CHOOSE to live on an island, you don't have too, you could live on the mainland. People who have cruisers choose to have them, they could have rowboats. What makes your choice higher in "priority" than there's?

Bringing food to your home has priority over taking a joy ride.

So does taking a sick child to the doctors or rushing a family member to the emergency room.

This is just common sence and obvious. If you can't see the difference then you need to think about it some more.

Who cares? Islanders need boats, so what? Does this mean that people on islands should be the only ones allowed to have boats? I think not. Does this mean that people on islands should be allowed to dictate who gets a boat? Nope. Should islanders be allowed to dictate speeds? No they shouldn't. Is the true reason for most proponents of the speed limit showing? Why yes it is, they are unhappy with the number and size of boats and feel a speed limit will reduce both.

I bought a place on Winnipesaukee knowing full well that on weekends and holidays in the summer it is a busy place. Had I wanted quieter with less boats and a speed limit I would have bought "On Golden Pond" (Squam). If you want less boats and a speed limit I suggest you buy on Squam and stop trying to turn Winni into Squam.

You're either missing my point or choosing to ignore it. You CHOOSE to live on an island, you CHOOSE to have children, etc. Thankfully, you have the right to be able to make those choices and I have defended that right. I have the right to have an 80 foot boat on this lake. What about the people that would rather have a weekend cruiser to spend weekends (weeks) with their children than buy island property?


What makes your right to choose any higher in the grand scheme of things than mine? You seem to imply (sorry if I'm misinterpreting) that you have some inalienable right to live on an island and go back and forth at the expense of me having whatever kind of boat I'd like. Accept equality of choice (and freedom) and enjoy life (isn't that why you're on an island?).

My point, for my final time, is that its all about choice; your's is backed by the same higher moral authority than mine. We only make different choices (for different reasons).

The implication that island people have more rights is ludicrous, it's no more than a lashing out, and could even be construed as prejudice. Why would a person on an island deserve to have a fuel powered boat? Row or paddle you way to shore, it gets the job done. Is it realistic in the 21st century, probably not, but stating that a select few have greater rights than the masses, would this not be considered.........?

Why couldn't we impose a restriction on the size and type of boat island dwellers can have - an inflatable meets the basic requirements. Don't agree - than why should the same imposition be made on everyone else?

Freedom of choice is what we all have. I think if I were ever to maroon myself and become an island dweller, my mode of transportation would be helicopter, so I wouldn't need a boat. ;)

Island Lover (or, others with an answer)

I'd be quite curious to see the specific RSA(s) which grant special rights to island residents. Could one of you point me in the right direction? :confused:

So far as I've always been taught, operating a motorized vehicle upon a public way (including operating a motor boat on public waters) is a priviledge, rather than a "right", and I'd be astounded to see an actual RSA stating differently. :rolleye2:

While a boat is admittedly a necessity for accessing island property, the island resident doesn't necessarily have to own it or be allowed to operate it. I, for one, can think of any number of instances where living on an island probably shouldn't "cut any ice", whatever, with respect to being allowed to operate a motor boat.

For instance, would you actually argue that a cronic BUI offender should continue to be allowed to operate a motor boat :eek: just because being forbidden to do so would make accessing their island home inconvenient? IMHO, this should be a case of "Tough luck; swim, paddle, or hitch a ride".

How about a scofflaw who refuses to get their safe boating certificate? Do you think that they should be allowed to operate a motor boat anyway, just because they live on an island? :rolleye1:

Or (tragically because no wrongdoing is involved) someone that's losing their eyesight or succumbing to Alzheimers or has just plain gotten too old to be able to operate a motor boat safely? :( Does living on an island make it safe to continue to operate a motor boat? (Remember, WinnFabs pushed safety as a reason to promote a speed limit!)

Now, as to your crowing about the speed limit, let me remind you that it hasn't passed. What's gone into effect is a temporary experiment in two very limited areas of the lake, while the MP evaluates whether it makes any sense. Somehow, I doubt that will suffice to drive GFBLs off the lake.

What I do strongly suspect you've accomplished is to gift a bunch of island residents with speeding tickets when they take off out of the Lovejoy Sands public docks after sunset (sometimes in pouring rain or fog) like the proverbial bats out of **** and encounter an MP boat waiting, without the blue light going, out there in the darkness. :laugh:

Do you think they'll be happy with WinnFabs? :confused: Do you think they'll continue to support the speed limit after getting nailed for what they've been allowed to do for years? :confused:

I don't. :D

Silver Duck

Three cheers for Silver Duck, excellent job.

Quack, Quack, Quack (those are the 3 duck cheers) ;)

All rights & privileges are equal......
 

Good question....and I think we've been down this path with some of these same individuals before.

Simply stated, the State by RSA specifically states that "...no corporation or individual shall have or exercise in any such body of water any rights or privileges not common to all citizens of this state...".

I have attached the entire RSA below and highlighted the specific answer to your question in red.

Hope this helps.....:)


TITLE XXII
NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY
CHAPTER 271
PILOTS, HARBOR MASTERS, AND PUBLIC WATERS
Defining Certain Public Waters
Section 271:20
271:20 State Water Jurisdiction; Published List of Public Waters; Rulemaking. –
I. All natural bodies of fresh water situated entirely in the state having an area of 10 acres or more are state-owned public waters, and are held in trust by the state for public use; and no corporation or individual shall have or exercise in any such body of water any rights or privileges not common to all citizens of this state; provided, however, the state retains its existing jurisdiction over those bodies of water located on the borders of the state over which it has exercised such jurisdiction.
II. The department of environmental services shall prepare, maintain, and publish an official list of all public waters in the state. The commissioner of the department of environmental services shall adopt rules, pursuant to RSA 541-A, relative to this publication.
Source. 1901, 9:2. PL 152:16. RL 182:17. RSA 271:20. 1977, 24:2. 1990, 177:2, eff. June 26, 1990.

Curious minds need to know:

Which mode of transportation do you utilize when ashore to fulfill your needs?

The lakewide no wake speedlimit is to protect your shorefront property, also, or did you forget?

Again, which mode of transportation do you utilize when ashore to fulfill your needs, if having a car on the mainland is not as important?

Some food for thought:

Try telling a homeless family living in their car that their car is not as important as your boat.

You see what people do when they lose an argument, they pretend it was really about something else!

Who said there were any laws giving more rights to islanders.... nobody!

Who said islanders had more rights than anybody else..... nobody!

Go back and read. The question was if islanders NEED boats. The obvious answer is - yes they do. But instead of admitting they were wrong, some people want to pretend it was about islanders having more rights than others.

We don't have more right to a boat than anybody else. We do have more NEED of a boat than anybody else.

Maybe you should be the one that re-reads the posts...

As a fellow islander I find this line of thinking ludicrous and arrogant. We choose to have island properties (definitely not a necessity) and have the same rights as people who do not. Period. We are not special. Maybe certain people (especially on parts of Bear) seem to think that they are more so than others, but here is a little tip. You are not!

By the way...

We NEED our boats because of our CHOICE to live on an island. If people choose to live out here year round it is their CHOICE. I am sure you can buy a nice house or condo for what your island property is worth. How's that for an option?

I read that and took it as a joke. But she may mean that people have more right to get to their home than others have to take a joy ride.

However there are at least 4 islanders posting in this thread, who says they are all from Bear.

Lets not start attacking people because of the island you THINK they live on.

Shall I say it again? Re-read.

Does my post state "only people on Bear"? Or pertain only to this thread? Historically speaking a certain group of islanders seem to be the ones spearheading many of the complaints and crusades to change the lake and the laws pertaining to it. Guess what? Many are from Bear. It's gotta be in the water...:rolleye2:

I am from Bear

Do islanders have more rights to a boat than anybody else? Interesting question. We do have more need, and I think that should mean more accommodation. But nobody has a right to a boat or a right to operate one.

Not everybody on an island chose to live there.

The reason why Bear islanders are leading the push for speed limits is not the water.

When bear & moose travel from island to island do they use a boat?
 

This is America, land of the free and the brave. Everything you do is a choice. Unless the island you live on is Alcatraz, my guess is you are there by choice. Even under house arrest you can be relocated off the island. I give the benefit of doubt though, because there are times when people loose control over circumstances and the result is they are forced to do things they may not ordinarily do.

All everyone is trying to communicate is we all make choices everyday, and whether you choose to live on an island, on mainland, in a tree, or forced to live on the streets, no one of these people, because of where they live, is entitled to more or less than the other.

No one needs a boat, no one needs a car, it's a choice we make because we want to have one based on our individual reasons.

What about the folks and 'their children' who do not have any property in the Lakes Region, but spend their vacations and weekends aboard their cabin cruiser (whatever the size) so they and their children can enjoy life and create wonderful childhood memories. This is their second home, this is what they chose to purchase. Are they now not entitled to have a boat on the lake because A) it's a cabin cruiser and/or B) they do not own island property?