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

http://www.marlinmag.com/news/news/n...ake-51792.html

I won't give them the respect of calling them "Captains", but instead will call them "Operators", just to be polite. There are a few other things I'd like to call them, but cannot do so on this family-friendly forum. A true Captain is aware of his surroundings and is responsible for all aspects related to the operation of his vessel. This includes the responsibility for their wakes. I'm in utter amazement at the complete disregard that a lot of these Cabin Cruiser operators have for other boaters, swimmers and for shorefront property. I think Marine Patrol should also publicize this rule as much as they do the Safe Passage Rule.

How can these bureaucrats sit in Concord at the DES/Wetlands bureau, dreaming up crazy ideas to protect the shorefront, such as prohibiting the cutting of brush or picking up pine needles? Look at the real problem will you. One pass by from these Cabin Cruisers does more damage to the shorefront than one property owner could ever think of causing by cutting a few bushes. Where is the outrage from these conservation groups working so hard to ramrod a speed limit? Get your heads out of the sand folks and address the real problems to the shorefront being caused by these huge Cabin Cruiser wakes - not from fast boats.

I agree
 

I have a fairlt large 23 footer with a deep v hull and even I was getting tossed around by these un-needed monsters on a lake of Winn's size, those are made for the ocean not the lake. i would take a GF boat over these any day. They are part of the reason, not just the wind, that makes up such large waves in the lake

Actaully I'll take this a step further. The amount of wave action on the lake is due to not only the increased boat traffic, but the increased number of power boats and the overall size of them. Granted the lake can get rough from time to time, but how much of the wave action is caused by wakes created by boat traffic? Now how much of that wave action is increased due to the size of the average boat being used on the lake these days? Everyone keeps going bigger in an attempt to have a comfortable ride, yet at the same time, the bigger you go the bigger the wake you throw up behind prompting everyone into a never ending increase in boat size. I do agree that cabin cruisers do throw an enormous wake, larger than any other boat on the water, including the go fast cigarette boats. Bottom line, you can't really write laws to curb this unless certain boat types, sizes, etc.... start being regulated. That of course is not the right answer either, matter of fact I'm not sure there is a good answer. All I know is that if everyone keeps going bigger the wakes aren't going to get smaller. Being an operator of a smaller vessel on the lake I just typically stay clear of the busy areas and find that the lake is large enough to find areas less travelled.

The rules against cutting brush and removing pine needles near the shore exist to stop runoff from washing things like fertilizer into the lake and ruining the water. They are not there to stop erosion. Shore erosion is a natural part of the life cycle of the lake and is only a problem for property owners, not the health of the lake. DES really does not care about the problems of property owners, only the health of the lake.

Wave Action
 

Unfortunately the biggest wave action onshore is caused by the lake's largest boat, the Mt. Washington. Don't know what the wave action looks like on other parts of the lake, but in Center Harbor the Mount's waves are the largest. They come up the highest, and break on the shore with much more force than any other boat, cabin cruisers included.

Was it a little rough at your place last weekend SP?Dave,I think SP's point was that he feels a lot more damage is done to the lake by big wakes than the increased runoff potential from raking a few pineneedles.I'd have to agree.

From the DES/Wetlands website:
"EROSION IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM"

Erosion is the process by which soil is carried by water or wind. When water carries soil into a waterbody, it not only fills in the waterbody but contributes nutrients that algae and aquatic weeds need to grow. When vegetation is removed or ground is disturbed, erosion accelerates, overloading the waterbody with nutrients and sediment. This can often contribute to excessive algae and aquatic weed growth, reducing the clarity and quality of the water.

I agree that DES does not care about the problems of property owners. However, according to their mission statement and various Rules and Acts, they do care about water quality and particularly erosion. What difference does it make if soils, vegetation and nutrients are entering the lake via runoff or via huge waves that are slamming into the shoreline and also up on to the horizontal plane of land? Water is running back into the lake in both cases, carrying the same particles. If you saw the amount of soil, etc., that is in the water after these waves hit, you would not believe your eyes.

What would a law or rule that would address your concerns look like?

The old saying "you are responsible for your wake" is a not really enough. If it's true, it's a civil liability issue. Someone would have to prove specific damage caused by negligent operation of a specific boat, that's a pretty high hurdle.

BTW calling people "operator" versus "captain" isn't really an insult. There are very few licensed captains on the lake. The few that I have met, tend to be big boat/ship ocean trained professionals and have absolutley no concern for their wake, except for no wake zones and 150' from shore. Recreational boaters who started small and worked their way up, know first hand what a big wake feels like and tend to have concern for what they in their wake.

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. I'm not saying waves don't cause erosion, I'm saying low lying brush, duff, and pine needles help to stop runoff from carrying sediment into the lake. Perhaps the same brush, duff and pine needles would stop waves from doing the same. If you remove this stuff and replace it with a lawn, or even just rake up the pine needles to keep them from being tracked into the house, you are exacerbating the problem. If left alone, the shore will eventually go back to it's natural, wave resistant state. Look around the lake at fairly untouched areas. The shore has a nice barrier of rocks up to the height of typical waves(and by "typical" I mean whatever is there, big, man-made waves are typical) and a firm layer of duff with brush growing in it right down to the edge of the rocks. Take the rocks away and clear out the brush to put in a beach or a lawn, and you make a spot for rain water to funnel all kinds of nasty stuff right into the lake. Waves are a given on a lake, man made or not, they do happen. The DES thinks man made lawns and beaches are a bigger "problem" than waves and that's why the DES would rather pursue the idea of responsible shore living than preventing waves.

If one were to leave the shore alone for 25 years while boats continue to operate on the lake, I bet the sediment you see when wakes wash ashore would be pretty much gone. Waves will make the shore to erode until ithe waves reach something solid (rocks), the old sediments will eventually settle to the bottom and new waves will beat against the new, solid shoreline rather than the artificial, soft shoreline. With a solid shoreline, the waves have nothing to stir up. The downside is that the lakeshore will expand and shore front property will be underwater in areas that are destined to erode away.

Big Wake Damage
 

I have to agree that the cabin cruisers are much more of a problem to the average boater than the GFs. On Rattlesnake this past Sunday, the wind had picked up and there were whitecaps b/w Rattlesnake and Sleepers. Our boats were riding fine at the dock until a big crusier went by about 3/4 of a mile away, and eventually the large wake hit the shore and pounded the boats into the dock causing damage to both the dock and the boats. In this case, there was no law broken as the boat was well off the shore, but the wake traveled forever, and even with the wind generated waves wasn't diminished by the time it came ashore.

Another time last summer, our 23' bow rider was swamped at no wake speed as a big cruiser didn't slow down past LT-2. This seemed much more due to operator disinterest in others around him.

Unfortunately, while these bigger boats have a much larger impact to their surroundings, many of the owners don't have an equal amount of regard for the effect on others...

There may have been no law broken per se, but a vessel (operator) is responsible for its wake and any damage done to another's property by this wake. I'll bet at least 90% of these Cabin Cruiser operators have no idea of this rule.

I think this topic has been discussed before and the conclusion was that boaters are not responsible for shoreline damage. If they are, I'd like to put in a claim for a yard of topsoil to replace what was removed by wake.

I agree- they are not held responsible for shoreline damage or erosion caused by wakes. However, they are responsible for damage to physical property such as boats and docks, as well as if their wakes cause another boat to capsize. Where is the accountability?

Cabin Cruisers are a Menace....
 

Seapilot,

Thank you for bringing up this issue. Dave R I hate to say that you are incorrect on this issue. Come see the waves that hit our place on Sat/Sun afternoon's. We recently had a wave from one of these boats that was 4-5 feet in height and not only swamped one of our boats but came half way into the yard flooding it. Once a small child of one our friends was knocked down on the shore line cutting her lip and chipping her tooth due to one of these beasts and its HUGE wake. Clearly these boats cause tons of erosion as well as being a safety hazard. DES needs to address it.
As for the damage/liability issue. These "operators" are liable and they are indeed responsible for any damage resulting from their wakes. Even beyond 150 feet. I checked with Marine Patrol. Chasing it and proving it however can be another matter. I am always amazed at how utterly clueless these cabin cruiser operators are. They either have absolutely no idea the utter chaos their wakes can cause with other boaters and those onshore or they don't care? The Mt. Washington goes by all the time and the wake is almost negligible ? Is it just when it is "planing up " so to speak? Not sure of that one.
Lets write to our legislators and let them know that the real issue isn't speed or GFast's but these large cabin cruisers , their draft and the resulting wakes.

Oh yes they ar geezer!
 

You are responsible for damage caused by your boat's wake: The Navigation Rules make it quite clear that the operator of a vessel is responsible for any damage caused by the wake their vessel produces. This not only includes damage caused to other vessels, but to people, property (such as docks) and the environment as well. Use courtesy and common sense when approaching other vessels and keep you wake to a minimum.

:( Problem is - you have to witness the action, take down the bow numbers and then prove that the vessel did the damage.

Which HAS BEEN DONE - friends who had been having a lot of trouble with a specific neighbor, one with a large crusier. This neighbor would come into shore on plane and cut his engines - thus creating this enormous wash that would cut under the boat giving it a push to the dock, BUT continuing onto crash on the shore line....removing items from their docks, and beach and eroding about 2 feet of their shoreline in one season!! They set up a video camera - waited patiently then filmed the boat coming in from a Sunday cruise - caught the entire action of the wash coming ashore - went to their attorney - who contacted the marine patrol, local police, DES, and the neighbor (who referred them to their attorney). Long story LONGER - the neighbor was made to pay for damages to the dock and shorline - was fined by DES and ever since have been VERY courteous boaters (at least when putting into dock!):D

The solution is simple.... limits. This lake is not the ocean. There is a size boat that is to large for a given lake. We can argue about what that size is, but there are boats that are to big for this lake.

You can do it with horsepower limits, displacement limits or whatever works best. The Mount has a large wake but it only goes by once or twice a day.

We need to take a step back from the bigger, faster, louder, more pollution direction we are going in.

I'm glad to see others chiming in on this subject and that it's not just me with these experiences. I have my video and still cameras handy at all times to document these situations with the big boat wakes. I had not even brought up the fact that these waves can cause serious personal injury to people and pets, should they be caught off-guard. Thanks to the others that brought this up in other posts. As I've said a million times before, a lot of these cabin cruisers are far more dangerous and destructive than the fast boats will ever be. However, I've yet to see any attention paid to the problem by the special interest groups or media. That's about to change - wait and see.:coolsm:

Several of you have commented that DES does not care about the problems of property owners and the DES is only concerned with surface run-off and not with erosion resulting from boat wakes. Neither of these statements is true. DES has been given the authority to control that activities that occur on the land adjacent to and under surface waters in order to prevent erosion, regardless of the cause, and protect water quality. DES has never been given the authority to regulate boating activities. That authority lies solely with the Dept of Safety. A large part of the rationale behind the movement to place greater protections on shoreline cover is that the vegetation will help property withstand the ever increasing boatwakes. The thicker the root systems the better. Woody stemmed shrub root systems are more dense than those of trees and for that reason are of great value at the waters edge.

In short it comes down to trying to do the best you can with what you have. DES has the ability to control what individuals cut, plant, or build in the shoreland so that is where they focus their attention.

I think it was just me, actually. My point was not to condone big wakes, I was trying to point out that following the DES guidelines makes the shore more able to handle big wakes. Also, to point out that the DES does not mind one bit that thier recommendations might mess up your view or beach.

I think the laws that make captains liable for wake damage ought to be enforced. There's no need for giant wakes on the lake.

The Mount operates 7 days a week.

Most cabin cruisers operate during the weekend - Saturday and Sunday.

That's two days a week compared to the Mount's seven days a week.

That makes the Mount the worst offender of the big boats on the Lake.

Be careful of your wishes. The Mount, Sophie, and Doris may soon be banned from travel on the Lake, as a result.

Then, again, codeman 671 could deliver your mail with his pontoon boat. :rolleye2:

Here is a thread two years ago regarding making a wake on Winnipesaukee.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=1794

Nothing has really changed since then.

If the DES really wanted to make a positive impact on water quality and the environment, the first thing they would do is ban two-stroke outboards. Every drop of oil mixed in the fuel ends up in the water or the air. Everytime one goes by there's a cloud of smoke and an oil slick.

I couldn't disagree more. That wake is minimal in comparison to other boats 1/4 the size. It goes by my house everyday and I hardly notice a ripple on a calm day. It's not even worth the gas to get there to jump it on a jet ski. Check out Manatu sometime if you want to see a wake. That thing is a traveling takeoff ramp manufacturing machine.

Mount Wake??
 

Gatto is correct.... the mount goes by our house 4-5 times per day at least and the wake is barely measurable. Does it make a wake getting up to speed? We have seen a swell of maybe 6-8 inches from it while the cabin cruiser's send in 3-4 violent waves (NOT swells) on a regular basis. If someone in one of them planes up or down ( or doesn't plane out at all because they don't know how too drive a boat) out front then FORGET IT.... LARGER waves.

Black Cat Islander en espanol
 

We're directly across from 1/2 mile so when the Mount comes in or out, its no more than 400-500 feet away. Maybe that's what accounts for the large waves. It does only come once a week though, twice on Mondays. But come to think of it the waves do seem smaller than they were many years ago. Wonder if their using a different kind of prop or soemthing. BTW, I love the Mount and wouldn't want it to curtail its visits to Center Harbor.

Reading some of the posts about the runoff erosion seems to make alot of sense, particularly what was said about the rocky shoreline. Looking at pictures of our shoreline area 100 years ago show minimal if any erosion where we left the rocky natural shoreline alone.

Where the heck did that come from??? I wasn't even involved in this topic...

SS, it's always rough as you know. However, it's not the volume of traffic or even the size of the waves generated by 98% of the boats. It's the 2% Captain Boneheads in their Cabin Cruisers that are causing the problems. That's ok though...I've ordered my new boat (photo below) and will be passing through all the Cabin Cruiser Yacht Clubs at 0200 hrs to say hello. But of course I'll be at NO WAKE SPEED!

Wakes from the Mount
 

The present Mt Wasington makes smaller wakes than the one I knew as a kid. It's a result of the extra length they added back in '82. The worst wakes I see come from the Sophie C and Doris E. There are a few Carver/Silvertons that make quite the waves as well though I've seen some of about the same size that don't make as much ruckus as their cousins. Not sure if it's small changes in the boats or speed that make the differences I see. Certainly I've seen some operate in mush mode and through very large wakes. I'm still amazed that some choose to do this.

Wake, Wake Come Out Where Ever You Are!
 

Seaplane Pilot when can I get a ride? :rolleye2:

Codeman breakout the ice boat and see what the wake will be without ice. :D

Seriously though. The Mount was lengthened some years ago and after that the wake it produces is far smaller. I can attest that the Sophie C and Doris E do have much larger wakes. Just ask my son about the bath he took while we were sitting for the Sopie C to pass many years ago- a 17' bow rider really dives into the wake when not underway. I had a great laugh though, I ducked down.:laugh:

It is not just large cruisers but all boats with deep vee, extended plane and other technology to give a better ride that produce large wakes. It seems to me to be boats larger than 20' that are the contributors to larger wakes. My boat at 22.5' and a deep V puts out a wake that can be large if not on plane and cruising at 25-30 mph +/-. I try but am not always successfull in preventing a wake that "attacks" the shore line. At least I know and I am aware of the wake and try to control it if I am closer to shore and outside of the 150' rule. Wake speed of course inside 150'.

Alton Bay around Sandy Point is a place where wakes are always a problem due to the path all must take. There are many other places and we all should be diligent to do the best we can and not create large destructive wakes.

As a foot note the large cruisers do put out a very large wake and their number on the lake has been increasing ever so slightly.

M&m
 

I don't think it was as long ago as the lengthening that I noticed the smaller shore waves, as that was 25 years ago. (oh my God) It was more recently, that's why I asked about the prop. Good thought though.

Folks:

The big boats are here to stay. Unfortunately, we all must adjust to the changes on the lake. Enjoy today, because it will be worse tomorrow.

The best defense to the current conditions is to purchase a solid deep V boat in the 22-26 foot range. This type of craft should keep you reasonably safe in most conditions you will face on Winnipesaukee. Good Luck and have a great summer.

Too many times while becalmed, the Mount has passed me about 200 feet away: if I hadn't been looking for the Mount's wake—I might have missed it.

It's possible that if you are on the inside of a turn that a cruiser makes, expect the wake to be much steeper and violent. While kayaking, I heard a frothy wake curl up behind me that was above my shoulders! :eek:

From the article:"Twelve inches of freeboard" is about what every canoe has.

I've noted previously (some would say complained) ;) that my entire wooded shoreline acre is slowly losing its soil to erosion. Yes, some is due to the rare storm directly out of the north—like what struck here July 6th, 2000 at 4:28PM. But every warm weekend, without fail, a train of oversized cruisers—that weren't here in 1991—will churn my shoreline into muddy murkiness. How can their wakes continue to draw mud from the shoreline year after year?

Even gentle rains—like yesterday's—gradually replaces soil and duff from the woods uphill. And every weekend, the "replacement mud" gets washed into the lake by cruisers. Fortunately, this entire mile of shoreline is too shaded and rocky to promote exotic milfoil growth (like the same-facing shoreline of Rattlesnake Island).

I'm grateful that a 3/8" mooring line snapped that secured my family's two-ton sailboat to the dock here. There's a good chance the dock would have been pulled off the pilings by a wake that one cruiser left behind.

We caught up to that cruiser ½-mile away as he was setting a second anchor to a shoreline tree. He seemed genuinely sorry, but four hours later, he sped away with the same disregard. Could this pennant—flown by many Winnipesaukee cabin cruisers—be part of the problem?
http://www.burgeeshoppe.com/BoatFunF...cktailTime.jpg

I hope that a warning is placed at those distant marinas and yacht clubs that support such lake-oversized boats; otherwise, I'd support an RSA keeping such boats to headway speed 1000' from shorelines: NHDEA rules on breakwaters are too burdensome for residents in bays and coves.

When those wakes collide with each other, the resulting wake—though brief—can be double that height: some time, follow a pair that are "racing" side by side. :rolleye1:

From a Google search last season, only one court case regarding wake damage could be found. It occurred in Maine and involved a fatality.

I believe this to be untrue. Can you post a link to back up your claim?

The Mount has a giant wake?
 

I agree with Gatto Nero. Have you ever seen the wake of the MV Bear that serves the two YMCA camps on Bear Island. Humongous.

And how about the mammoth Marine Patrol boat? Two falls ago, on a calm and quiet day, that monster went by in front of my place, a few thousand feet out. It's wake was so large that it lifted my 25 foot bowrider (on it's mooring whips, but not as tight a usual), and tossed it violently against the dock posts damaging the gel coat on the rear side of the boat. The bill was several hundred dollars to repair the damage.

Of course the big cabin cruisers are frequent and habitual captain boneheads in this regard. I had one plow by me last weekend while I was fishhing maybe at most hundred feet off my starboard (I could have hit him with a beer bottle close). He seemed to be running at a speed designed to create the biggest possible wake. (no worries about fuel prices there). I had to turn into his wake and risk fouling my lines rather than get swamped by the giant rollers he produced. He and his wife seem to enjoy watching my boat get tossed by his wake. I have a 17 foot Montauk. The lack of consideration from boats that size is consistently awful. I used to think they were just clueless. Arrogance is probably more likely the root cause.

Ah but you can't legislate common sense or courtesy.

I don't know about "every drop" but it's not hard to find lots of information about how bad 2 strokes are for the environment. Here are just the top few from a Google search. Number 2 on the list was from our own DES.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/science/sandemay00/article1_e.html

http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/ard/ard-31.htm

http://www.wavelengthmagazine.com/1997/am97two.php

The Mount has a giant wake?
 

I agree with Gatto Nero. Have you ever seen the wake of the MV Bear that serves the two YMCA camps on Bear Island. Humongous.

And how about the mammoth Marine Patrol boat? Two falls ago, on a calm and quiet day, that monster went by in front of my place, a few thousand feet out. It's wake was so large that it lifted my 25 foot bowrider (on it's mooring whips, but not as tight a usual), and tossed it violently against the dock posts damaging the gel coat on the rear side of the boat. The bill was several hundred dollars to repair the damage.

Of course the big cabin cruisers are frequent and habitual captain boneheads in this regard. I had one plow by me last weekend while I was fishhing maybe at most hundred feet off my starboard (I could have hit him with a beer bottle close). He seemed to be running at a speed designed to create the biggest possible wake. (no worries about fuel prices there). I had to turn into his wake and risk fouling my lines rather than get swamped by the giant rollers he produced. He and his wife seem to enjoy watching my boat get tossed by his wake. I have a 17 foot Montauk. The lack of consideration from boats that size is consistently awful. I used to think they were just clueless. Arrogance is probably more likely the root cause.

Ah but you can't legislate common sense or courtesy.

First of all, I know that there are new super clean two-strokes around, but I'm talking about the old tried and true engines. Cheap, reliable, easy to fix, last forever and dirty as hell.

"Every drop of oil mixed in the fuel ends up in the water or the air"

Well this statement is common sense, you mix gas and oil, then put it in the gas tank. When you are done riding it's gone, where did it go? Either in the air or the water. Some of it is burned and some of it is still unburned. Here are some links:

http://www.bluewaternetwork.org/repo...missionbay.pdf
http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/ard/ard-31.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in509964.shtml

"Everytime one goes by there's a cloud of smoke and an oil slick"

This statement is my observation but I'm not alone:

http://www.ec.gc.ca/science/sandemay00/article1_e.html
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/...sti_id=6793672

I still miss my old two-stroke dirt bike, but you have to move on.

The big boats may not be here to stay. A law passed by the legislature or an administative rule adopted my the Department of Safety and they are gone. Many New Hampshire lakes have horsepower limits and plenty of people where angered and had to remove their boats from the water as a result.

A horespower limit could be fazed in over many years or an exception made for boats already operatining in Winni.

The important thing is to see that even LARGER boats don't start showing up. Ten years from now we could be looking back at 2007 as being the good old days before the big boats arrived.

Interesting Language in Safety Services Rules
 

Operation of Boats
Section 270:29-a
270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats. – Any person who shall operate a power boat upon any waters of the state in a careless and negligent manner or so that the lives and safety of the public are endangered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Source. 1981, 353:12, eff. Aug. 22, 1981.

Seems to me that these huge waves are endangering the lives and safety of the public.

Sounds like some of you could substitute posts from last year with "GFLB" and insert "cruiser" this year. As I and others have said many times, its the operator not the boat. The last few years all the performance boats were lumped together, this year's target seems to be cruisers. Lets target ignorant, irresponsible boaters of all types of crafts and focus on the real issue. Just curious how many of you are members of any of the various organizations around the lakes region that promote boating safety (PM me and I'll give you a list). I prefer to donate my time to promote safety rather than complain. I remember the Black Panthers from the 60s and 70s; "You're either part of the problem or part of the solution".

BTW, from my observations the Dorris E and Sophie C throw some of the biggest wakes, but I forgot, they're nostalgic. Has anyone written to Mount Washington Cruises? (I haven't because it doesn't bother me). Summer and life are just to short.

Off my soapbox, over and out;)

You are absolutely correct - it's the operator, not the boat. Thanks for the reminder. SP