Photos of Erosion and Other Ills

[paintitredinHC]

Honestly, this rule would be established over my dead body. I would quit my regular job, relocate full-time to the lake, get part-time work at Aubuchon Hardware, and lobby against this rule as my full-time job.

Such a rule would effectively render the cove I live in off-limits for watersports. For my family, a foundational element for deciding where we chose on the lake is predicated on the fact that it is ideal for watersports. My unborn children and their children will be slalom waterskiing in that cove.

I would also argue that creating such a rule would subsequently reduce the value (both intrinsically and extrinsically) of our home, thus equally deleterious as the waves crashing ashore.

As for 150 feet not being enough space for a wake to dissipate to a reasonable size (from a boat traveling in a straight line), I will need to see demonstrable scientific evidence that suggests such a wave is causing undue erosion. Even then, this does not take into account other mitigating factors that subject one particular piece of shore less susceptible to erosion (as noted by other posters on this forum).

I should add that as far as I know, both the skier and the boat must be 150 feet from shore. Meaning, the boat already has to be at least 215 feet from shore.

I suggest we figure out some other solution.

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Well a more sensible approach to this would be to establish new rules in regards to ALL watersports that involve a towable and that is that this activity must be done no less than 500 or ever 750 feet off the nearest shore and the 150 foot rule applies thereafter far as keeping a safe distance from others underway.

[SIKSUKR]

Not to drag up a heated GFBL debate again but I wonder if those that were so against these "big ocean boats" causing damage to the lake are happier with the rise in "Go Slow Big Wave" boats which constantly circle about in the same areas. Seems that the GFBL boat has way less impact as it pretty much goes from point "a" to "B". FWIW

[iw8surf]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Not to drag up a heated GFBL debate again but I wonder if those that were so against these "big ocean boats" causing damage to the lake are happier with the rise in "Go Slow Big Wave" boats which constantly circle about in the same areas. Seems that the GFBL boat has way less impact as it pretty much goes from point "a" to "B". FWIW

People who circle towing any watersport don't know what they are doing. Pick a line and go straight! And NO powerturns

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Not to drag up a heated GFBL debate again but I wonder if those that were so against these "big ocean boats" causing damage to the lake are happier with the rise in "Go Slow Big Wave" boats which constantly circle about in the same areas. Seems that the GFBL boat has way less impact as it pretty much goes from point "a" to "B". FWIW

That is very true. I wondered the same thing.

In fact, the GFBL boats were a lot less of a nuisance than the wake boats. A GFBL boat goes by (usually on plane and leaving a much smaller wake) and keeps on going. If they have a stereo the speakers are located down inside the boat (with the intention that the people IN the boat enjoy the music).

Wake board boats seem to get in a particular area and stay, sometimes for hours. While little Skippy and the boat load of friends each take their turn they play loud music through speakers mounted to blast music across the lake, above the sound of the boat. That music (sometimes loaded with profanity) can easily be bothersome to over 100 homes at a time.

I have been sitting on my front deck reading a book when one of the wake board boats decide to play in my area. I have had to go inside to get away from the noise these boats make, mostly from the loud stereos. I never had to do that in the days of the GFBL boats.

[FlyingScot]

Oops. Did not mean to thank you for post, but did mean to respond. Setting aside the hyperbole--at least one of us continues to be challenged by math--how do you get that the boat needs to be 215' from shore?

Originally Posted by paintitredinHC

I should add that as far as I know, both the skier and the boat must be 150 feet from shore. Meaning, the boat already has to be at least 215 feet from shore.

[sky's]

hopefully the "lake front owners" dont get too mad you guys pay my property taxes. thank you

[paintitredinHC]

Pete -

Well, you're welcome anyway I guess.

Setting aside the mutual snark -- and focusing on the pedantic --

I thought I'd save our compatriots by not going into the nuanced details of the math calculations, but alas, here we are.

A typical tow rope is 65 feet in length. Picture a boat towing a skier that is edging far off to the side of the boat, and said skier comes within 150 feet of shore -- they are in violation of the law. Therefore, a legal 150 feet plus 65 feet (of rope) equals 215 feet. I know, math is hard.

But, this gets more nuanced! This must drive you nuts, because none of this can possibly be nuanced. Black and white - amiright?! Please bare with me.

Sometimes I like to Wakeboard with more than 65 feet, because more line means more air-time on tricks (ugh... physics AND geometry). 75 feet bumps this math calculation to 225 feet! I'll admit, a calculator was used for this extrapolation.

Darn, sometimes I waterski at 55 feet because the water is flatter as I cross the wake on a slalom. I'm not even sure I can do all this math... Wake surfing you ask? There's no rope... but the rider is roughly 5-10 feet from the part of the boat with the spinny thing.

I just thought it'd be easier to just say an average of 215 feet than go into the pedantic details, but I totally get why I should have outlined my methodology beforehand.

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Oops. Did not mean to thank you for post, but did mean to respond. Setting aside the hyperbole--at least one of us continues to be challenged by math--how do you get that the boat needs to be 215' from shore?

[ITD]

Originally Posted by paintitredinHC

Pete -

Well, you're welcome anyway I guess.

Setting aside the mutual snark -- and focusing on the pedantic --

I thought I'd save our compatriots by not going into the nuanced details of the math calculations, but alas, here we are.

A typical tow rope is 65 feet in length. Picture a boat towing a skier that is edging far off to the side of the boat, and said skier comes within 150 feet of shore -- they are in violation of the law. Therefore, a legal 150 feet plus 65 feet (of rope) equals 215 feet. I know, math is hard.

But, this gets more nuanced! This must drive you nuts, because none of this can possibly be nuanced. Black and white - amiright?! Please bare with me.

Sometimes I like to Wakeboard with more than 65 feet, because more line means more air-time on tricks (ugh... physics AND geometry). 75 feet bumps this math calculation to 225 feet! I'll admit, a calculator was used for this extrapolation.

Darn, sometimes I waterski at 55 feet because the water is flatter as I cross the wake on a slalom. I'm not even sure I can do all this math... Wake surfing you ask? There's no rope... but the rider is roughly 5-10 feet from the part of the boat with the spinny thing.

I just thought it'd be easier to just say an average of 215 feet than go into the pedantic details, but I totally get why I should have outlined my methodology beforehand.

Yeah, 150 feet or 215 feet is not enough distance to take the power out of those boat wakes. It's amazing the power of those waves from a quarter mile away hitting the shore.

[The Real BigGuy]

Originally Posted by paintitredinHC

Pete -

Well, you're welcome anyway I guess.

Setting aside the mutual snark -- and focusing on the pedantic --

I thought I'd save our compatriots by not going into the nuanced details of the math calculations, but alas, here we are.

A typical tow rope is 65 feet in length. Picture a boat towing a skier that is edging far off to the side of the boat, and said skier comes within 150 feet of shore -- they are in violation of the law. Therefore, a legal 150 feet plus 65 feet (of rope) equals 215 feet. I know, math is hard.

But, this gets more nuanced! This must drive you nuts, because none of this can possibly be nuanced. Black and white - amiright?! Please bare with me.

Sometimes I like to Wakeboard with more than 65 feet, because more line means more air-time on tricks (ugh... physics AND geometry). 75 feet bumps this math calculation to 225 feet! I'll admit, a calculator was used for this extrapolation.

Darn, sometimes I waterski at 55 feet because the water is flatter as I cross the wake on a slalom. I'm not even sure I can do all this math... Wake surfing you ask? There's no rope... but the rider is roughly 5-10 feet from the part of the boat with the spinny thing.

I just thought it'd be easier to just say an average of 215 feet than go into the pedantic details, but I totally get why I should have outlined my methodology beforehand.

Hate to get “snarky” about you math but, there ain’t no way you ski/wakeboard 90 degrees perpendicular to your boat transom. If you did you’d be somewhere else making $ on the pro circuit. So you can’t add rope length to 150 to come up with distances. Plus who says all wake boats observe the “legal” 150 distance.

That said I agree something has to be done. Probably should start with people showing less concern for what makes them happy and more concern for how their actions effect others.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[FlyingScot]

I was not being snarky. I do not ski or board, so I thought there might be something about the math. Based on your message below, it is clear that you do not understand the math in two important ways.

First, if the legal requirement for boats is 150', then a skier, no matter how long his tow rope, can ski 150' from shore if he is directly behind the boat and the line is parallel to shore. So let's drop the 225' claim.

Second, and more importantly, as pointed out by ITD, 1/4 mile is a better estimate of how far these wakes extend.

Originally Posted by paintitredinHC

Pete -

Well, you're welcome anyway I guess.

Setting aside the mutual snark -- and focusing on the pedantic --

I thought I'd save our compatriots by not going into the nuanced details of the math calculations, but alas, here we are.

A typical tow rope is 65 feet in length. Picture a boat towing a skier that is edging far off to the side of the boat, and said skier comes within 150 feet of shore -- they are in violation of the law. Therefore, a legal 150 feet plus 65 feet (of rope) equals 215 feet. I know, math is hard.

But, this gets more nuanced! This must drive you nuts, because none of this can possibly be nuanced. Black and white - amiright?! Please bare with me.

Sometimes I like to Wakeboard with more than 65 feet, because more line means more air-time on tricks (ugh... physics AND geometry). 75 feet bumps this math calculation to 225 feet! I'll admit, a calculator was used for this extrapolation.

Darn, sometimes I waterski at 55 feet because the water is flatter as I cross the wake on a slalom. I'm not even sure I can do all this math... Wake surfing you ask? There's no rope... but the rider is roughly 5-10 feet from the part of the boat with the spinny thing.

I just thought it'd be easier to just say an average of 215 feet than go into the pedantic details, but I totally get why I should have outlined my methodology beforehand.

[DPatnaude]

An interesting short read on the energy of waves as a factor of their height:
https://foca.on.ca/wp-content/upload...ther_lakes.pdf

[loonguy]

Originally Posted by DPatnaude

An interesting short read on the energy of waves as a factor of their height:
https://foca.on.ca/wp-content/upload...ther_lakes.pdf

Thanks to DPatnaude for the excellent article discussing the physics of waves and potential corrective action increasing the required distances from shore by wake boats and others to limit erosion and other damage from wave action.

[Pine Island Guy]

Originally Posted by paintitredinHC

Pete -

Well, you're welcome anyway I guess.

Setting aside the mutual snark -- and focusing on the pedantic --

I thought I'd save our compatriots by not going into the nuanced details of the math calculations, but alas, here we are.

A typical tow rope is 65 feet in length. Picture a boat towing a skier that is edging far off to the side of the boat, and said skier comes within 150 feet of shore -- they are in violation of the law. Therefore, a legal 150 feet plus 65 feet (of rope) equals 215 feet. I know, math is hard.

But, this gets more nuanced! This must drive you nuts, because none of this can possibly be nuanced. Black and white - amiright?! Please bare with me.

Sometimes I like to Wakeboard with more than 65 feet, because more line means more air-time on tricks (ugh... physics AND geometry). 75 feet bumps this math calculation to 225 feet! I'll admit, a calculator was used for this extrapolation.

Darn, sometimes I waterski at 55 feet because the water is flatter as I cross the wake on a slalom. I'm not even sure I can do all this math... Wake surfing you ask? There's no rope... but the rider is roughly 5-10 feet from the part of the boat with the spinny thing.

I just thought it'd be easier to just say an average of 215 feet than go into the pedantic details, but I totally get why I should have outlined my methodology beforehand.

I won't argue with your math... but your English says you're inviting others ski naked with you

(you might want to change "Please bare with me"... to "Please bear with me")

Humor break is over, back to the discussion at hand -PIG

[bilproject]

I am on the north end, west side of Bear Island just south of the nwz right about where boats slow down and power up. On windy days with no or little boat traffic (wind generally is from the NW creating waves at the same angle as boat wakes) the water along my shoreline is clear. On busy Saturdays in the summer with 100 to 200 boats an hour passing North and South, the bottom can not be seen from the shore up to 40 feet out. What might you think is causing the erosion of the shore?

[tis]

Originally Posted by bilproject

I am on the north end, west side of Bear Island just south of the nwz right about where boats slow down and power up. On windy days with no or little boat traffic (wind generally is from the NW creating waves at the same angle as boat wakes) the water along my shoreline is clear. On busy Saturdays in the summer with 100 to 200 boats an hour passing North and South, the bottom can not be seen from the shore up to 40 feet out. What might you think is causing the erosion of the shore?

Is that your place where Ambrose is putting in the new dock? (We just went by there.)

[bilproject]

Originally Posted by tis

Is that your place where Ambrose is putting in the new dock? (We just went by there.)

No I'm south of there. That is the beginning of the Nwz.

[tis]

Ok. Just thought I would ask.

[paintitredinHC]

Sometimes - I feel like contributing to this forum is a waste of effort. But the fact that this thread (in particular) was initiated by an association that has tangible regulatory influence beyond the idle consternations of us, the anonymous keyboard jockeys; I feel I am obligated to present an alternative perspective, if for no other reason than to balance the input.

That said, I don't think any of us are all that different from each other in terms of concern for the well being of the lake. I am not under the false pretense that the activities that I enjoy have no impact. In fact, I have acknowledged before that wake activity does have a negative impact to the lake and homeowners property. And, it would stand to reason that a larger wake generated by a wake boat would exacerbate the problem. However, please consider that there are actions that can be taken to mitigate the problem without prohibitive regulation. Furthermore, broad reaching regulations are often an over-reaction to a far more nuanced issue - as Maxum pointed out. If I can offer some insight on those nuances, then, when (not if) regulations are enacted, they are based on informed input.
There have been a lot of great points made and I'd like to address as many of them as I can.

Big Guy - you bring up the most salient point - We would all be much better off if we were more considerate of others. I'm no exception, and I can always be better. I will make a concerted effort to do so, and a sincerely hope that others do as well.... Although, I think you grossly under-estimate the skill set needed to make money on a professional circuit. 90 degrees from the side of the boat is not hard - particularly on a slalom ski. Now, going ‘around the world’ (360 degrees) is impressive, and I've only achieved that once. A story for another time, perhaps.

PIG - I blame the New Hampshire state school I attended.

FlyingScot - I know you're not a wakeboarder or waterskier - that much is clear. For every nuance I bring up, you turn it into Pandora’s Box with uniformed statements. That's fine though, I can take the time to elaborate because these are the details that matter. Just because a skier 'can' ski directly behind the boat, certainly does not mean that they do. A driver should assume that their skier will need to remain at a legal distance at all times and should budget maximum required space when traveling parallel to shore. I try to subscribe to this approach when I am towing someone, and others should be taught this as well. Not only is it the legal thing to do, but it is the morally just thing to do. As for your (and ITD's) second point, a quarter of a mile (1,320 feet) is roughly the width of the channel between Long Island an Sandy Island. Next time you venture through there, get back to me and let me know if you were slightly exaggerating. In any event, there are multiple factors that could influence your estimate, some of which were very aptly supplied by DPatenaude.

DPatenaude - Very informative article indeed. Thanks for bringing fact to the discussion. There are a few things I want to address here.

1. Pay particularly close attention to the image of the wakes at different speed. Per the article, a boat towing a water skier (~32 mph) is at planning speed and generates a wave that is 25 cm high. Because I assume a pedantic question from Pete is inevitable - this is probably an average, and may be slightly more or slightly less depending on the boat, how many people are in it, which way the wind is blowing and whether or not I had lunch. Now the article is clear that this measurement is taken at the point at which the wake is made off the stern of the boat and not when it reaches shore. Without further details on how much a wake of this size dissipates within conservative 150 feet, it is hard to say how much impact it will have. But let's venture to guess that it is halved (BTW there are so many factors that determine wave dissipation rates and it is way too intense to go into here… i.e. wind, other waves, bottom depth, elevation, etc.) Per the article, 12.5 cm is insignificant impact to the shore. Now, this is for skiing not wakeboarding or wake surfing. Which begs the question, should we consider different regulations for different sports? Perhaps?

2. Wakeboarding wakes are half a meter or more (50cm) at 23mph (still planning speed). Assuming again 150 feet from shore halves the wave size, we work our way down to 4 times as destructive as no wake. Maybe for wakeboarding you need to be 300 feet from shore for the wake to dissipate to a reasonable size? I'm not a scientist, but assuming a linear calculation, the same limited impact as skiing noted above could be achieved. This regulation is in line with the Safe Quiet Boating Association in the Muskoka Lakes mentioned in the article. Again, just to CYA (or CMA) we need someone more qualified than my back of the napkin calculations to verify, but I'm just doing this to illustrate the variables that need to be considered.

3. Wakesurfing is an entirely different beast altogether. Not to put a too fine point on it, but I heard a joke recently. What's the difference between you and a professional Wakesurfer?... Two weeks of practice. And I agree, why are they even blasting terrible music - kids these days... I digress. Wakesurfing is performed at roughly 11.5mph, which is classified as 'Transition Speed' according to the article. This creates the largest and most damaging waves. No calculations for the size of these waves are detailed in the article, but suffice to say, I am fairly confident that these are the waves that have drawn your collectively ire. I wholeheartedly agree that this activity should be performed in the broads, if at all on the lake. Hell, you can outlaw it and that's fine by me. That said, you're going to have a tough go of that because as Maxum pointed out, it's becoming VERY popular. Mostly because anybody with a pulse and 150k to burn on a Wakesurfing boat can do it.

Well, I hope this was at least somewhat informative. I think I'll start my weekend now...

[ITD]

Originally Posted by paintitredinHC

Sometimes - I feel like contributing to this forum is a waste of effort. But the fact that this thread (in particular) was initiated by an association that has tangible regulatory influence beyond the idle consternations of us, the anonymous keyboard jockeys; I feel I am obligated to present an alternative perspective, if for no other reason than to balance the input.

That said, I don't think any of us are all that different from each other in terms of concern for the well being of the lake. I am not under the false pretense that the activities that I enjoy have no impact. In fact, I have acknowledged before that wake activity does have a negative impact to the lake and homeowners property. And, it would stand to reason that a larger wake generated by a wake boat would exacerbate the problem. However, please consider that there are actions that can be taken to mitigate the problem without prohibitive regulation. Furthermore, broad reaching regulations are often an over-reaction to a far more nuanced issue - as Maxum pointed out. If I can offer some insight on those nuances, then, when (not if) regulations are enacted, they are based on informed input.
There have been a lot of great points made and I'd like to address as many of them as I can.

Big Guy - you bring up the most salient point - We would all be much better off if we were more considerate of others. I'm no exception, and I can always be better. I will make a concerted effort to do so, and a sincerely hope that others do as well.... Although, I think you grossly under-estimate the skill set needed to make money on a professional circuit. 90 degrees from the side of the boat is not hard - particularly on a slalom ski. Now, going ‘around the world’ (360 degrees) is impressive, and I've only achieved that once. A story for another time, perhaps.

PIG - I blame the New Hampshire state school I attended.

FlyingScot - I know you're not a wakeboarder or waterskier - that much is clear. For every nuance I bring up, you turn it into Pandora’s Box with uniformed statements. That's fine though, I can take the time to elaborate because these are the details that matter. Just because a skier 'can' ski directly behind the boat, certainly does not mean that they do. A driver should assume that their skier will need to remain at a legal distance at all times and should budget maximum required space when traveling parallel to shore. I try to subscribe to this approach when I am towing someone, and others should be taught this as well. Not only is it the legal thing to do, but it is the morally just thing to do. As for your (and ITD's) second point, a quarter of a mile (1,320 feet) is roughly the width of the channel between Long Island an Sandy Island. Next time you venture through there, get back to me and let me know if you were slightly exaggerating. In any event, there are multiple factors that could influence your estimate, some of which were very aptly supplied by DPatenaude.

DPatenaude - Very informative article indeed. Thanks for bringing fact to the discussion. There are a few things I want to address here.

1. Pay particularly close attention to the image of the wakes at different speed. Per the article, a boat towing a water skier (~32 mph) is at planning speed and generates a wave that is 25 cm high. Because I assume a pedantic question from Pete is inevitable - this is probably an average, and may be slightly more or slightly less depending on the boat, how many people are in it, which way the wind is blowing and whether or not I had lunch. Now the article is clear that this measurement is taken at the point at which the wake is made off the stern of the boat and not when it reaches shore. Without further details on how much a wake of this size dissipates within conservative 150 feet, it is hard to say how much impact it will have. But let's venture to guess that it is halved (BTW there are so many factors that determine wave dissipation rates and it is way too intense to go into here… i.e. wind, other waves, bottom depth, elevation, etc.) Per the article, 12.5 cm is insignificant impact to the shore. Now, this is for skiing not wakeboarding or wake surfing. Which begs the question, should we consider different regulations for different sports? Perhaps?

2. Wakeboarding wakes are half a meter or more (50cm) at 23mph (still planning speed). Assuming again 150 feet from shore halves the wave size, we work our way down to 4 times as destructive as no wake. Maybe for wakeboarding you need to be 300 feet from shore for the wake to dissipate to a reasonable size? I'm not a scientist, but assuming a linear calculation, the same limited impact as skiing noted above could be achieved. This regulation is in line with the Safe Quiet Boating Association in the Muskoka Lakes mentioned in the article. Again, just to CYA (or CMA) we need someone more qualified than my back of the napkin calculations to verify, but I'm just doing this to illustrate the variables that need to be considered.

3. Wakesurfing is an entirely different beast altogether. Not to put a too fine point on it, but I heard a joke recently. What's the difference between you and a professional Wakesurfer?... Two weeks of practice. And I agree, why are they even blasting terrible music - kids these days... I digress. Wakesurfing is performed at roughly 11.5mph, which is classified as 'Transition Speed' according to the article. This creates the largest and most damaging waves. No calculations for the size of these waves are detailed in the article, but suffice to say, I am fairly confident that these are the waves that have drawn your collectively ire. I wholeheartedly agree that this activity should be performed in the broads, if at all on the lake. Hell, you can outlaw it and that's fine by me. That said, you're going to have a tough go of that because as Maxum pointed out, it's becoming VERY popular. Mostly because anybody with a pulse and 150k to burn on a Wakesurfing boat can do it.

Well, I hope this was at least somewhat informative. I think I'll start my weekend now...

Why don't you go stand on the shore when a large boat or a wakesurfing or wakeboarding boat goes by kicking up a 2+ foot wake and then tell me I'm wrong. If you think the wave from your boat dissipates in 215 feet you are very mistaken, take a look some day. I see it every weekend during the summer and most week days, I'd video it for you, but sounds like you don't care, which is fine, but at least look, before you declare others wrong about something easily seen.

[Greene's Basin Girl]

Originally Posted by paintitredinHC

Sometimes - I feel like contributing to this forum is a waste of effort. But the fact that this thread (in particular) was initiated by an association that has tangible regulatory influence beyond the idle consternations of us, the anonymous keyboard jockeys; I feel I am obligated to present an alternative perspective, if for no other reason than to balance the input.

That said, I don't think any of us are all that different from each other in terms of concern for the well being of the lake. I am not under the false pretense that the activities that I enjoy have no impact. In fact, I have acknowledged before that wake activity does have a negative impact to the lake and homeowners property. And, it would stand to reason that a larger wake generated by a wake boat would exacerbate the problem. However, please consider that there are actions that can be taken to mitigate the problem without prohibitive regulation. Furthermore, broad reaching regulations are often an over-reaction to a far more nuanced issue - as Maxum pointed out. If I can offer some insight on those nuances, then, when (not if) regulations are enacted, they are based on informed input.
There have been a lot of great points made and I'd like to address as many of them as I can.

Big Guy - you bring up the most salient point - We would all be much better off if we were more considerate of others. I'm no exception, and I can always be better. I will make a concerted effort to do so, and a sincerely hope that others do as well.... Although, I think you grossly under-estimate the skill set needed to make money on a professional circuit. 90 degrees from the side of the boat is not hard - particularly on a slalom ski. Now, going ‘around the world’ (360 degrees) is impressive, and I've only achieved that once. A story for another time, perhaps.

PIG - I blame the New Hampshire state school I attended.

FlyingScot - I know you're not a wakeboarder or waterskier - that much is clear. For every nuance I bring up, you turn it into Pandora’s Box with uniformed statements. That's fine though, I can take the time to elaborate because these are the details that matter. Just because a skier 'can' ski directly behind the boat, certainly does not mean that they do. A driver should assume that their skier will need to remain at a legal distance at all times and should budget maximum required space when traveling parallel to shore. I try to subscribe to this approach when I am towing someone, and others should be taught this as well. Not only is it the legal thing to do, but it is the morally just thing to do. As for your (and ITD's) second point, a quarter of a mile (1,320 feet) is roughly the width of the channel between Long Island an Sandy Island. Next time you venture through there, get back to me and let me know if you were slightly exaggerating. In any event, there are multiple factors that could influence your estimate, some of which were very aptly supplied by DPatenaude.

DPatenaude - Very informative article indeed. Thanks for bringing fact to the discussion. There are a few things I want to address here.

1. Pay particularly close attention to the image of the wakes at different speed. Per the article, a boat towing a water skier (~32 mph) is at planning speed and generates a wave that is 25 cm high. Because I assume a pedantic question from Pete is inevitable - this is probably an average, and may be slightly more or slightly less depending on the boat, how many people are in it, which way the wind is blowing and whether or not I had lunch. Now the article is clear that this measurement is taken at the point at which the wake is made off the stern of the boat and not when it reaches shore. Without further details on how much a wake of this size dissipates within conservative 150 feet, it is hard to say how much impact it will have. But let's venture to guess that it is halved (BTW there are so many factors that determine wave dissipation rates and it is way too intense to go into here… i.e. wind, other waves, bottom depth, elevation, etc.) Per the article, 12.5 cm is insignificant impact to the shore. Now, this is for skiing not wakeboarding or wake surfing. Which begs the question, should we consider different regulations for different sports? Perhaps?

2. Wakeboarding wakes are half a meter or more (50cm) at 23mph (still planning speed). Assuming again 150 feet from shore halves the wave size, we work our way down to 4 times as destructive as no wake. Maybe for wakeboarding you need to be 300 feet from shore for the wake to dissipate to a reasonable size? I'm not a scientist, but assuming a linear calculation, the same limited impact as skiing noted above could be achieved. This regulation is in line with the Safe Quiet Boating Association in the Muskoka Lakes mentioned in the article. Again, just to CYA (or CMA) we need someone more qualified than my back of the napkin calculations to verify, but I'm just doing this to illustrate the variables that need to be considered.

3. Wakesurfing is an entirely different beast altogether. Not to put a too fine point on it, but I heard a joke recently. What's the difference between you and a professional Wakesurfer?... Two weeks of practice. And I agree, why are they even blasting terrible music - kids these days... I digress. Wakesurfing is performed at roughly 11.5mph, which is classified as 'Transition Speed' according to the article. This creates the largest and most damaging waves. No calculations for the size of these waves are detailed in the article, but suffice to say, I am fairly confident that these are the waves that have drawn your collectively ire. I wholeheartedly agree that this activity should be performed in the broads, if at all on the lake. Hell, you can outlaw it and that's fine by me. That said, you're going to have a tough go of that because as Maxum pointed out, it's becoming VERY popular. Mostly because anybody with a pulse and 150k to burn on a Wakesurfing boat can do it.

Well, I hope this was at least somewhat informative. I think I'll start my weekend now...

I totally agree with you. Most wakeboard boats up at our end of the lake come into Green's Basin. They blast music and wakeboard for hours. The people in these boats have zero respect for the people that live in the basin and I am sure they are not worried at all about erosion. They should only be allowed out in very large areas.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by Pine Island Guy

I won't argue with your math... but your English says you're inviting others ski naked with you

(you might want to change "Please bare with me"... to "Please bear with me")

Humor break is over, back to the discussion at hand -PIG

paintitrdinHC has the right idea. Bare boarders will likely stay away from shore, thus causing less erosion.

[Outdoorsman]

Originally Posted by paintitredinHC

Pete -

Well, you're welcome anyway I guess.

Setting aside the mutual snark -- and focusing on the pedantic --

I thought I'd save our compatriots by not going into the nuanced details of the math calculations, but alas, here we are.

A typical tow rope is 65 feet in length. Picture a boat towing a skier that is edging far off to the side of the boat, and said skier comes within 150 feet of shore -- they are in violation of the law. Therefore, a legal 150 feet plus 65 feet (of rope) equals 215 feet. I know, math is hard.

But, this gets more nuanced! This must drive you nuts, because none of this can possibly be nuanced. Black and white - amiright?! Please bare with me.

Sometimes I like to Wakeboard with more than 65 feet, because more line means more air-time on tricks (ugh... physics AND geometry). 75 feet bumps this math calculation to 225 feet! I'll admit, a calculator was used for this extrapolation.

Darn, sometimes I waterski at 55 feet because the water is flatter as I cross the wake on a slalom. I'm not even sure I can do all this math... Wake surfing you ask? There's no rope... but the rider is roughly 5-10 feet from the part of the boat with the spinny thing.

I just thought it'd be easier to just say an average of 215 feet than go into the pedantic details, but I totally get why I should have outlined my methodology beforehand.

I will dumb this down for you. The 150' rule is for the VESSEL. There is nothing saying a skier towed behind said vessel can not pass closer than 150'... So much for your calculator.

[paintitredinHC]

Originally Posted by Outdoorsman

I will dumb this down for you. The 150' rule is for the VESSEL. There is nothing saying a skier towed behind said vessel can not pass closer than 150'... So much for your calculator.

So hostile.

https://www.boat-ed.com/newhampshire...102_700153787/

The last line on this page suggests otherwise.

[Outdoorsman]

Originally Posted by paintitredinHC

So hostile.

https://www.boat-ed.com/newhampshire...102_700153787/

The last line on this page suggests otherwise.

This line?
When returning to the shore with a skier, the towing vessel and the skier must remain at least 150 feet from shore.

Read the word Vessle....

[paintitredinHC]

Originally Posted by Outdoorsman

This line?
When returning to the shore with a skier, the towing vessel and the skier must remain at least 150 feet from shore.

Read the word Vessle....

Dude- you’re worse than freakin flyingscot. Is this willful ignorance? You literally underlined ‘and the skier’... we can debate the application of the law if the skier is directly in line with the boat, but if the operator does not allow for a margin of error if the skier ventures outside of the wake then they are illegal. This is not a difficult concept. And this is so peripheral to the primary issue I don’t even understand why everyone is so fixated on it... not to mention that I’m actually suggesting that boats towing skiers should be further away from shore which I would think aligns with the primary concern. Throw a figure out there and everyone does mental gymnastics to refute it, but bring up a conceptual argument and everyone’s eyes glaze over..

[greeleyhill]

I think this thread has gone sideways, which can happen on this forum from time to time. That's ok. Lots of people, lots of opinions which, is usually great but once again, it turns into an argument with a few people...which is fine and sometimes entertaining. Please read the original post and remember the original spirit of the post which is to help LWA build a case by identifying hot spots where runoff and erosion are potential hazard to the lake and our property value. Just my thought at the moment, but again, also enjoy the entertainment value and obserdity brought on by some who seem oddly aggressive and uninformed.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by paintitredinHC

Honestly, this rule would be established over my dead body. I would quit my regular job, relocate full-time to the lake, get part-time work at Aubuchon Hardware, and lobby against this rule as my full-time job.

Such a rule would effectively render the cove I live in off-limits for watersports. For my family, a foundational element for deciding where we chose on the lake is predicated on the fact that it is ideal for watersports. My unborn children and their children will be slalom waterskiing in that cove.

I would also argue that creating such a rule would subsequently reduce the value (both intrinsically and extrinsically) of our home, thus equally deleterious as the waves crashing ashore.

As for 150 feet not being enough space for a wake to dissipate to a reasonable size (from a boat traveling in a straight line), I will need to see demonstrable scientific evidence that suggests such a wave is causing undue erosion. Even then, this does not take into account other mitigating factors that subject one particular piece of shore less susceptible to erosion (as noted by other posters on this forum).

I should add that as far as I know, both the skier and the boat must be 150 feet from shore. Meaning, the boat already has to be at least 215 feet from shore.

I suggest we figure out some other solution.

So let me preface my response to this simply by saying I have no beef with ski boats, wakeboard boats or for that matter cigarette boats. To each his own is how I look at it, the lake is a public resource to be enjoyed by all so long as that enjoyment is not resulting in undo harm to the lake itself. Which brings us to the question at hand.

Now I may have not been completely clear in my posting so I will further stipulate that I agree with you in that the effects as they are caused by large wakes in various areas, in particular confined areas such as your cove as an example need to be looked at BEFORE anything should be enacted. Now I'm sure any observation of such activities may result in immediately jump to the conclusion that big waves are bad. I on the other hand agree with you that unless this can be proven to be a significant cause of shore erosion, steps taken (such as what I suggested) would, in theory mitigate that to some degree. HOWEVER I am no proponent no such restrictions should be put into place unless or until there is some fact behind it. We need not look to far back in history to see that facts take the back burner to emotion when it comes to pleading the case to do something, even if it's got no merit - AKA the speed limit law. It is clear at least to me that law was put into place squarely to curb the use of cigarette boats in the name of "safety".

So if you think about it - what could happen as possible solutions? Well I can see the B(an) word coming up, turning more areas - including your cove into an overnight NWZ, or who knows what else. So pick your poison I guess.

Just as a casual observer it's hard to imagine the wakes thrown by wakeboard boats aren't having some effect. I mean common let's be honest here. To what extent is really the question that needs to be answered. I think it completely ludicrous to turn a blind eye to at least the possibility. That said, the overall effects may very well be way overstated and hey not for nothing, could be found to have little impact. Of course not any particular shore line is identical and of course there are many variables to consider. I just happen to be of the opinion at this time to flat out say there is no impact, at the same time I equally roll my eyes at this being a huge problem and the main culprit to all the shoreline erosion problems as well. A contributor, maybe, but that's where a little more data is needed.

Just keep one thing in mind. As these boats, and the wake surfing activity as a whole becomes more popular more casual observers, especially those that don't like it will question the effects of it expressly for the purposes of trying to stop it.

Till then enjoy your surfing responsibly