No Wake

[Hillcountry]

Yup...I’ve seen two rentals from “anchor marine” (name emblazoned on the side of the yellow/white boat) blasting through 2 different NWZs.
Probably the same “older” couple.

[tis]

Absolutely, Don. They don't pay attention. I think maybe they don't know (even though there is a sign) so I yell at them too. But I might as well save my breath. Some of them even argue. So many people, like one right now plowing through, just said they thought it was 6 MPH. Dead calm, on a jet ski, and they don't need to make any wake at all. So irritating.

[salty dog]

Last week we went twice through the no wake between Eagle and Governors. Each way we couldn't believe the number of boats blasting through like it didn't exist. Today, tied up at Alton Docks for picnic lunch, at least 3 different boats were well above "no wake" sending waves through the docks. Someone gave one of them the air horn but no results. We've been on the lake about 10 years, certainly not as long as many of you, but to me, it definitely is getting worse as time goes on.

[TiltonBB]

I was just outside of Alton Bay at about 5:30 this afternoon. A pontoon boat on the left was going to intersect my path. I sped up to get out of the way so they didn't collide with my boat. As they passed behind me a woman on the boat waved, but forgot to use 3 of her fingers. I wanted to go back and educate them but sometimes there is no hope.

[8gv]

If a photo has enough detail to make out the registration numbers, could/would MP act on it?

[Dave R]

FWIW, in most places, it's normal to make a small wake in a no wake zone and no one cares. It would be so smart if they simply posted the speed limit of 6 MPH instead of "No Wake". They way the law is written, most Winnipesaukee boats will create a wake in a no wake zone without breaking the law. If you've read the law and still think it means you must go the slowest possible speed your boat can go in a NWZ, you are wrong.

I recently spent a lot of time cruising in Canada and the official (there are many private signs) no wake zone signs there clearly state "10 kph" (6.2 MPH). Everything except for 40 foot+ boats leaves a wake at that speed, but everyone realizes that it's normal and no one cares about the <1 foot wakes. I was also in NY waters on the same cruise, and there the signs say 5 MPH. The wakes are smaller, but still present at that speed.

Going 3 MPH in NH to avoid making a ripple is just silly when you can legally go 6 MPH. This might be why people just ignore the air horns and yelling, they might have GPS and know that they are not breaking the law. This is especially true if they are going against some current, the wakes, in that case, can be substantial without breaking the law.

[ApS]

"Royalty-Free Stock Photo" https://tinyurl.com/y8xn8nuf

Originally Posted by tis

Absolutely, Don. They don't pay attention. I think maybe they don't know (even though there is a sign) so I yell at them too. But I might as well save my breath. Some of them even argue. So many people, like one right now plowing through, just said they thought it was 6 MPH. Dead calm, on a jet ski, and they don't need to make any wake at all. So irritating.

Maybe start a GoFundMe site for a seasonal employee?
Get a tan—meet people—learn sign language?

Isn't "presentation" everything?

>

[tis]

It would NOT be smart to simply post the speed limit of 6 MPH because that is NOT the law. The law is NO WAKE. This is not Canada and this is not NY waters. This is lake Winnipesaukee. The only exception to no wake is if you will lose control of your boat by going a slower speed and believe me there is usually not enough current on Winnpesaukee to need to go 6 MPH, at least in most NO WAKE areas on most occasions. I have been told by Marine Patrol that the NH law that many misunderstand, was written for the ocean and the MP here does not like it. The can and do give people tickets and if the ticket gets contested and somebody goes to court the judge will back the MP. I think the MP needs to publicly get this information out to the public since some apparently don't understand the law. I still don't know why people are in such a hurry anyway. And if they don't like the no wake law and need to make waves stay out of of the zones.

[MikeF-NH]

two years ago I had my then-new boat docked at Channel Cottages (which is a fantastic place to stay by the way and none of this is their fault) in late Spring and watched a constant barrage hit my boat at the dock from waking boats there were not even going reasonably slow enough to just maintain control. The wakes were substantial and I watched my poor boat getting slammed against the dock so hard that even the bumpers provided no protection. My boat took damage to the paint that weekend in several places and unfortunately for both me and the business owner...I can't go back due to knowing what goes on there. These jerks costed me damage to my boat and caused the owner business.

Most disappointing (and I'm a huge supporter of emergency response personel) was watching a fire boat go through at probably 10-15 mph kicking up a two foot wake with no lights on. I watched them go down to where Paugus begins to open and stop and sit there for about 10 minutes so it was clear they were not responding to an emergency.

I would love to see MP just post a camera there where they could capture bow numbers and video evidence including pictures of the captain and proceed to gather enough funding through fines to pay salaries of all state wide MPs each year. I'm guessing from my observations that they could gather 100+ fines each weekend day...maybe more. Think of the revenue...and the education!!! If they wanted to be fair about it they could even post a sign near the bridge saying "Wakes monitored and enforced by camera".

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by MikeF-NH

Most disappointing (and I'm a huge supporter of emergency response personel) was watching a fire boat go through at probably 10-15 mph kicking up a two foot wake with no lights on. I watched them go down to where Paugus begins to open and stop and sit there for about 10 minutes so it was clear they were not responding to an emergency.

You cannot know that they were not responding to an emergency, and I doubt they would run the Channel at speed just for fun.

Many emergency vehicles, police, fire, ambulance, enroute to a call might be the second or third due at that incident. When the first or subsequent vehicle arrives and determines that additional help is not needed, and the situation is under control, a radio call is made to cancel the additional response. That happens quite often, every day.

For years people have erroneusly commented when an emergency vehicle passes them at a higher rate of speed and then slows down and shuts off the emergency lights that they must be on the way to the coffee shop. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[tis]

I hear ya', Mike and it erodes the shore line as well as the boats and docks. Even if it is not a NO WAKE area, they should slow down. I think cameras is a great idea!

[SAMIAM]

I don't think there will ever be a solution to bonehead capt's
I gave up and got mooring whips.
The other day my jet ski's got blown right off the beach from a big wake....luckily they were tethered.

[The Real BigGuy]

Originally Posted by tis

It would NOT be smart to simply post the speed limit of 6 MPH because that is NOT the law. The law is NO WAKE. This is not Canada and this is not NY waters. This is lake Winnipesaukee. The only exception to no wake is if you will lose control of your boat by going a slower speed and believe me there is usually not enough current on Winnpesaukee to need to go 6 MPH, at least in most NO WAKE areas on most occasions. I have been told by Marine Patrol that the NH law that many misunderstand, was written for the ocean and the MP here does not like it. The can and do give people tickets and if the ticket gets contested and somebody goes to court the judge will back the MP. I think the MP needs to publicly get this information out to the public since some apparently don't understand the law. I still don't know why people are in such a hurry anyway. And if they don't like the no wake law and need to make waves stay out of of the zones.

Actually, and unfortunately (I live in a NW zone) you are wrong. I believe that the law is written something like the slowest you can go to maintain control or 6mph. The unfortunate thing is this has been interpreted by enforcement to mean a max speed of 6 mph. I believe this is a misinterpretation of the legislations intent but, what do I know. If they had added “the slower of” or “not to exceed” we wouldn’t have these issues.

In 1983 I was exiting the Weirs channel at what I thought was no wake speed. An MP near the end of the channel yelled at me to slow down. I yelled back that I was going no wake speed. He yelled back, “Turn around. Do you see white? If you see white you are making a wake!” That has stuck with me.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by tis

It would NOT be smart to simply post the speed limit of 6 MPH because that is NOT the law. The law is NO WAKE.

The law does not address wakes at all, but it does give a very specific speed.

Here it is:

TITLE XXII NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY
CHAPTER 270-D
BOATING AND WATER SAFETY ON NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC WATERS
Section 270-D:1

"VI. "Headway speed" means 6 miles per hour or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way. "

"VIII. "No wake area" means an area where a boat is to be operated only at headway speed. "

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by Dave R

The law does not address wakes at all, but it does give a very specific speed.

Here it is:

TITLE XXII NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY
CHAPTER 270-D
BOATING AND WATER SAFETY ON NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC WATERS
Section 270-D:1

"VI. "Headway speed" means 6 miles per hour or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way. "

"VIII. "No wake area" means an area where a boat is to be operated only at headway speed. "

But if 6 mph is obviously, causing a wake it’s just too fast.
Headway speed is simply being able to make forward progress without going backwards (sometimes in a wicked current, you might be exceeding 6 but you need to do what it takes to keep moving ahead) no such currents exist on Winni save for the spring current toward Paugus.
Simple, really.

[Woodsy]

NO Wake/Headway is 6 MPH regardless of how much wake your boat puts out at that speed. The law is written as such that you can EXCEED 6MPH if conditions warrant it.

Woodsy

[noreast]

A 6 MPH wake is not going to affect anyone's day. I don't think a large cruiser at 6 MPH could cause any real issues, could it?

[Woody38]

My boat at idle goes faster than most others, therefore I have to go to neutral.
Then I don't have headway and am constantly going in and out of gear in these conditions when there is a lot of traffic. Not good.

---------------------------------------------

I am a retired workaholic and continuing aquaholic

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by noreast

A 6 MPH wake is not going to affect anyone's day. I don't think a large cruiser at 6 MPH could cause any real issues, could it?

To some shore front owners it's like a tsunami that caused a seismic like wave.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Rusty

To some shore front owners it's like a tsunami that caused a seismic like wave.

When a cruiser passed by at top speed Monday, I was thinking that his wake shouldn't be too bad.



"Education" tells us that plowing produces more wake—which can also be attributed to "trim"—an equivalent affront to shorelines.

Even a quarter-mile away, his wake came crashing down on our shoreline. "Surf's Up!"



It's a good thing we're not at Spring's highest water level, or more silt would be severely eroded from shore—all the way to Meredith!

.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by ApS

When a cruiser passed by at top speed Monday, I was thinking that his wake shouldn't be too bad.


"Education" tells us that plowing produces more wake—which can also be attributed to "trim"—an equivalent affront to shorelines.

Even a quarter-mile away, his wake came crashing down on our shoreline. "Surf's Up!"




It's a good thing we're not at Spring's highest water level, or more silt would be severely eroded from shore—all the way to Meredith!

Wow..that wave must have wiped out all the homes on that shore line.
My heart goes out to all the owners of these homes that this wave totally destroyed.

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Wow..that wave must have wiped out all the homes on that shore line.
My heart goes out to all the owners of these homes that this wave totally destroyed.

Always with the sarcasm. Why? He is just pointing out that larger wakes can cause erosion.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by joey2665

Always with the sarcasm. Why? He is just pointing out that larger wakes can cause erosion.

Ignore my comments if it bothers you that much.

APS and I go back a long way, he can pretty much defend himself.

Have a good day & don't let me bother you so much.

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Ignore my comments if it bothers you that much.

I can say the same thing!!!

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Wow..that wave must have wiped out all the homes on that shore line. My heart goes out to all the owners of these homes that this wave totally destroyed.

1) As previously posted, the cruiser can be seen to be going fast, which is a factor in producing a reduced wake—so we are told.

Indeed, in the photo below, the wake that struck the shore appears innocuous. Note the cruiser's wake coursing across the center of the photograph, as indicated by the two x's. Although a small wake, it is cresting between the x's—never a good sign.

2) The lake is approaching year-end's lowest level. Had this cruiser's "modest" wake struck at "full-pond", more soil (and Phosphorus) would have been released, more trees (and boulders) would fall into the lake, and more survey markers would be found in the lake.

[Cal Coon]

Originally Posted by ApS

1) As previously posted, the cruiser can be seen to be going fast, which is a factor in producing a reduced wake—so we are told.

Indeed, in the photo below, the wake that struck the shore appears innocuous. Note the cruiser's wake coursing across the center of the photograph, as indicated by the two x's. Although a small wake, it is cresting between the x's—never a good sign.

2) The lake is approaching year-end's lowest level. Had this cruiser's "modest" wake struck at "full-pond", more soil (and Phosphorus) would have been released, more trees (and boulders) would fall into the lake, and more survey markers would be found in the lake.

This is a joke, right? So who's fault is it when the wind kicks up the white caps?? Do those waves cause the same amount of damage as the waves that are caused by gas and oil?? Or is it just the waves caused by gas and oil that do the damage?? You have got to be kidding me. I'm going to have to side with Rusty on this one... Where are the surfers??? Man, they missed a big one!!

[Descant]

Originally Posted by Cal Coon

This is a joke, right? So who's fault is it when the wind kicks up the white caps?? Do those waves cause the same amount of damage as the waves that are caused by gas and oil?? Or is it just the waves caused by gas and oil that do the damage?? You have got to be kidding me. I'm going to have to side with Rusty on this one... Where are the surfers??? Man, they missed a big one!!

Wind driven waves have their place. Mostly, exposed areas have moved the waters edge up to the ledge or granite boulders over the last few hundred years. However, in a protected cove, or on a small lake, there is not a lot of natural wave action caused by wind. However, boats in these coves, with large wakes can cause some erosion or other damage to docks and boats if there is enough repeated activity of some magnitude. So the argument is very situational.

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by noreast

A 6 MPH wake is not going to affect anyone's day. I don't think a large cruiser at 6 MPH could cause any real issues, could it?

About a week ago we were returning to the Weirs after fishing on a day that had become extremely windy. I took the route closest to mainland which was between Locke’s and the Glendale area. On the other side of the narrows there was some kind of sailing club out sailing. They had watch boats with them to act as a safety net in case of any capsized sailors. One of the sailboats was actually capsized due to the heavy winds and was being taken care of by a watch boat. I maneuvered through them at headway speed giving plenty of room to the sailboats when I spot this huge cruiser heading out from (I think it’s Fay’s marina after passing west of Locke’s).
This was a 40 foot plus behemoth and he was plowing along making a huge wake. That idiot sailed right into the mass of sailboats without slowing and actually caused one to nearly capsize by cutting so close to it (less than 20 ft). We couldn’t believe our eyes. If I was to guess his speed I’ll bet it was under 10 mph. So yes, a wake can cause havoc at slower speeds. He may not have been going 6 but he may as well have been going 20. We were hoping the watch boat got his name or numbers.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Hillcountry

About a week ago we were returning to the Weirs after fishing on a day that had become extremely windy. I took the route closest to mainland which was between Locke’s and the Glendale area. On the other side of the narrows there was some kind of sailing club out sailing. They had watch boats with them to act as a safety net in case of any capsized sailors. One of the sailboats was actually capsized due to the heavy winds and was being taken care of by a watch boat. I maneuvered through them at headway speed giving plenty of room to the sailboats when I spot this huge cruiser heading out from (I think it’s Fay’s marina after passing west of Locke’s).
This was a 40 foot plus behemoth and he was plowing along making a huge wake. That idiot sailed right into the mass of sailboats without slowing and actually caused one to nearly capsize by cutting so close to it (less than 20 ft). We couldn’t believe our eyes. If I was to guess his speed I’ll bet it was under 10 mph. So yes, a wake can cause havoc at slower speeds. He may not have been going 6 but he may as well have been going 20. We were hoping the watch boat got his name or numbers.

A 40 foot cruiser at 6 MPH won't make any appreciable wake.

[kawishiwi]

Originally Posted by Dave R

A 40 foot cruiser at 6 MPH won't make any appreciable wake.

I do not believe you have faintest idea what you are talking about. I was over a hundred yards away from 30+ ft cruiser today, probably doing about 6, and it threw enough wake I had to scramble to turn my boat into it so I didnt get rocked from gunwale to gunwale.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by kawishiwi

I do not believe you have faintest idea what you are talking about. I was over a hundred yards away from 30+ ft cruiser today, probably doing about 6, and it threw enough wake I had to scramble to turn my boat into it so I didnt get rocked from gunwale to gunwale.

Agreed--we were almost swamped twice by mid/high 30's Carvers last year on our 20' 'toon while going through "no wake" zones.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by kawishiwi

I do not believe you have faintest idea what you are talking about. I was over a hundred yards away from 30+ ft cruiser today, probably doing about 6, and it threw enough wake I had to scramble to turn my boat into it so I didnt get rocked from gunwale to gunwale.

I actually have a pretty good idea about what I'm talking about. Here's the deal, the "hull speed" (the fastest the boat can go over water before it starts to plow or climb on plane) of a boat is dependent on the length at waterline. The equation is: hull speed in knots equals 1.34 times the square root of the waterline length in feet (HS = 1.34 x √LWL). Thus, the longer the hull the faster the hull speed is. While there are certainly other factors that affect wake and true hull speed, for a given speed under hull speed, a longer boat will make less wake than a shorter boat if they have similar hull designs.

When boat operate at 2/3 of hull speed or less, they make practically no wake at all. 40 foot boats would typically have a 35 to 38 foot LWL, thus their hull speed will be around 8 knots (9.3 MPH). At 6 MPH, they are clearly running at less than 2/3 of hull speed (6.2 MPH) and not making more than a minor ripple.

The hull speed of a 10 foot PWC (assuming 9 feet LWL) is 4.6 MPH. At 6 MPH they are plowing like crazy and throwing a good size wake, pretty much like the photo in the first post on this thread...

Here's a really neat white paper on wakes, if you like physics: https://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/Documents/...ake-151014.pdf

[kawishiwi]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I actually have a pretty good idea about what I'm talking about. Here's the deal, the "hull speed" (the fastest the boat can go over water before it starts to plow or climb on plane) of a boat is dependent on the length at waterline. The equation is: hull speed in knots equals 1.34 times the square root of the waterline length in feet (HS = 1.34 x √LWL). Thus, the longer the hull the faster the hull speed is. While there are certainly other factors that affect wake and true hull speed, for a given speed under hull speed, a longer boat will make less wake than a shorter boat if they have similar hull designs.

When boat operate at 2/3 of hull speed or less, they make practically no wake at all. 40 foot boats would typically have a 35 to 38 foot LWL, thus their hull speed will be around 8 knots (9.3 MPH). At 6 MPH, they are clearly running at less than 2/3 of hull speed (6.2 MPH) and not making more than a minor ripple.

The hull speed of a 10 foot PWC (assuming 9 feet LWL) is 4.6 MPH. At 6 MPH they are plowing like crazy and throwing a good size wake, pretty much like the photo in the first post on this thread...

Here's a really neat white paper on wakes, if you like physics: https://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/Documents/...ake-151014.pdf

...I stand corrected.
What low speed does a, say, 35 ft cruiser need to go to throw a wake that breaks on itself 100 yards away?

[Woodsy]

Kawishiwi...

Its the weight/mass of the object that causes the wave energy.... a 35' cruiser could weigh up to 20,000lbs...

My guess is you crossed paths with a 20,000lb underpowered brick...

Woodsy

[Woody38]

My 37' Egg Harbor weighed 40,000 lbs. It did not throw a big wake on plane, then one can always utilize the trim tabs to raise or lower the bow.

------------------------------------------------------

I am a retired workaholic and continuing aquaholic

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by kawishiwi

...I stand corrected.
What low speed does a, say, 35 ft cruiser need to go to throw a wake that breaks on itself 100 yards away?

Assuming 33 feet at the water line, anything over 5.85 MPH (two thirds of hull speed) will typically create some white water (breaking waves).

Try it out in your boat. Just plug the water line length into my original equation:

(HS = 1.34 x √LWL)

Then take the result and multiply it by .77 to get two thirds hull speed in MPH. If you have GPS, see how your wake looks at that speed, under that speed and above that speed.

The magic speed for my boat is 4.88 MPH, when I'm really trying not to make a wake, I keep it below 5 MPH and have never heard a word from anyone about my wake. When I'm in a silly-big NWZ, (like Meredith, or the one on the Potomac River by Alexandria), I run at 6ish MPH until I'm 150 feet from docks.

[Little Bear]

All this no wake complaining is quite entertaining. You should have spent the weekend sitting at my place. Huge, breaking waves slamming into the shoreline all weekend long, caused by all kinds of vessels, going all different speeds. I knew it going in when I bought the place, but the waves keep getting bigger and bigger. If a child or pet is in the water when some of these waves come ashore, there would be potential for serious injury.

So for you poor people that live in no-wake zones that are complaining about small ripples and white froth coming from boats, come on over and see how green the grass is on the other side of the fence!

And for those who don't think these boat waves cause substantial shoreline erosion, please feel free to PM me and I will extend a personal invitation for you to come see for yourself (and I will supply the beer!).

[Hillcountry]

Deleted due to YouTube problem...sorry

[JEEPONLY]

Not too long ago i heard Mike Baxter say to his wife, "Gee, I was afraid our relationship was devolving into meaningless banter". Does art imitate life?

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Hillcountry

Deleted due to YouTube problem...sorry

I saw them before they were deleted. That hull speed equation is only for mono-hull boats, multi-hull boats like yours are not the same because of the way the bow waves interact between the hulls. My 25 foot mono-hull makes a huge wake at 10 MPH. You can see it in the link below, taken on the Champlain Canal, where the speed limit is 10 ans there's no safe passage law. Bear in mind too, that the close confines and shallow water also increase the wake intensity.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...4&l=bb72d1767b

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by kawishiwi

I do not believe you have faintest idea what you are talking about. I was over a hundred yards away from 30+ ft cruiser today, probably doing about 6, and it threw enough wake I had to scramble to turn my boat into it so I didnt get rocked from gunwale to gunwale.

That happened because a boat wake is a transfer of energy.... it takes a lot of energy to push a 15,000 lb+ cruiser thru the water. This energy transfer is what gives the wake amplitude/energy and can potentially cause damage.

Woodsy

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by kawishiwi

I do not believe you have faintest idea what you are talking about. I was over a hundred yards away from 30+ ft cruiser today, probably doing about 6, and it threw enough wake I had to scramble to turn my boat into it so I didnt get rocked from gunwale to gunwale.

Dave knows more about boats and boating than pretty much anyone I know.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by noreast

A 6 MPH wake is not going to affect anyone's day. I don't think a large cruiser at 6 MPH could cause any real issues, could it?

Law enforcement might allow a 10% "over", so 6.6-MPH rounded-off to 7-MPH should be good.

[tis]

Originally Posted by ApS

Law enforcement might allow a 10% "over", so 6.6-MPH rounded-off to 7-MPH should be good.

>

APS, you don't get it. It's not about the speed. It's about the wake your boat is throwing out.

[BroadHopper]

It is true that the statutes regarding Headway speed vs No wake appears to be one and the same. 6 mph or a speed to maintain steerage. Yet some LEOs interpret a different way. The size of the wake!

If you have a judge that goes by the law and one get cited for creating a wake then the judge will throw out the conviction if the person is traveling 6 mph. If the person claims he must travel over 6 mph to maintain steerage, this is where the judge have to make a decision. All boats have different speed to maintain steerage and outside influence such as current, wind etc. must also come into consideration. So do your homework.

Unfortunately the local courts almost always side with marine patrol, so it's a no win situation unless you can justify and prove your speed!

In my travels to other states, the signage makes sense. Headway speed signs in channels and passages. No wake signs in designated areas where there should be no wake. In NH there is now such thing as a 'Headway speed' area. In passages or channels it's no wake.

Tough to pick your battles and to educate the public in NH.

[Woodsy]

Wow... So much wrong information...

The law defining Headway speed is absolute... you are allowed up to 6 MPH before you need to perhaps explain yourself to the MP. When the law was written, the NH legislature, knew that different boats need different speeds to maintain steerage, and that conditions such as current & wind can vary those numbers substantially. The law was written (just like the nighttime speed limit) such that the overwhelming majority of boats do not need to exceed 6MPH in normal conditions to maintain steerage, however, unlike the speed limit, there is a provision in the law that allows you to EXCEED the 6mph should the conditions warrant it.

A boat ALWAYS makes a wake as it moves thru and displaces the water (its a simple energy transfer) that's just physics. So while at 6MPH while you might actually make a visible wake, there is very little wave energy in that wake so no damage is done.

I have no problem at all going thru a NWZ at 5.5MPH on my GPS...

Woodsy

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Hillcountry

But if 6 mph is obviously, causing a wake it’s just too fast.

Is it though? No boat is going to make a damaging wake at 6 MPH unless it's in a fast current. If there is a fast current, it won't be the first time, so anyone that docks a boat on a stretch of water with a potential for fast current needs to plan for wakes. Realistically, you should plan for wakes no matter where you dock. Fenders exist for a reason.

Originally Posted by Hillcountry

Headway speed is simply being able to make forward progress without going backwards (sometimes in a wicked current, you might be exceeding 6 but you need to do what it takes to keep moving ahead) no such currents exist on Winni save for the spring current toward Paugus.
Simple, really.

Yes, that is simple (and eloquent too), but it's your definition of headway speed, not the state's definition. That state is quite clear on this: "VI. "Headway speed" means 6 miles per hour or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way. ".

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Is it though? No boat is going to make a damaging wake at 6 MPH unless it's in a fast current. If there is a fast current, it won't be the first time, so anyone that docks a boat on a stretch of water with a potential for fast current needs to plan for wakes. Realistically, you should plan for wakes no matter where you dock. Fenders exist for a reason.



Yes, that is simple (and eloquent too), but it's your definition of headway speed, not the state's definition. That state is quite clear on this: "VI. "Headway speed" means 6 miles per hour or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way. ".

If you’re going 6 through the channel you’re going to get yelled at...

[tis]

"VIII. "No wake area" means an area where a boat is to be operated only at headway speed. "
__________________

And headway speed means 6MPH or the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way.

So what is hard to understand about that? 6 MPH or the slowest speed does not mean JUST 6MPH.

All I can say Woodsy is you do just what you want to do. But you deserve to be caught.

As Real Big Guy said per Marine Patrol: Turn around and look and see if you are making a wake.

I would like to educate not start an argument. But some people are so sure of themselves--- it just isn't worth it.

And I do wonder if the new breed of MP is as knowledgeable as they used to be. So maybe you will get away with doing what you want.

[noreast]

Originally Posted by Hillcountry

If you’re going 6 through the channel you’re going to get yelled at...

Yell back, Or make a poster that say's " I'm going 6 MPH". You could add an FU if you feel the need.

[Reilly]

Originally Posted by Hillcountry

If you’re going 6 through the channel you’re going to get yelled at...

Only by one person 😊😊😊