No Wake

[ApS]

Originally Posted by noreast

Exactly, And the worst argument for anything is because it's always been that way. I think we can come up with an unlimited list of things that have been improved.

Normally, I'd agree, but our 1909 Winnipesaukee chart shows NO MARKERS at all. The first "improvement" was to go to anchored 6"x6" tapered wooden markers, painted red and black. Ice moved them around, and some captains struck them at night—knocking the tops off to leave just a hint of a marker at the surface.

Such boaters prompted the next improvement, which was PVC markers in red and black. Today, they break only if struck "dead-on", or if "sleds" break them off, level with the ice.

Now, if only we could agree with the color of the next "improvement".

Originally Posted by VitaBene

My vision is perfectly good. Black markers have been a subject of complaint here for many years. I always boat at a speed suitable for the conditions- whether they be lighting or weather.

Yes...We are all "above average".

Y'know, cataracts of the eyes can strike at middle age. Excluding advanced age, the one aggravating activity?

Boating in the sunshine—where direct UV rays are compounded by being reflected off the water, to take the double toll of skin cancers and cataracts.

BTW: Most everybody who has had cataract-surgery comments, "Color has come back".

Originally Posted by Descant

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.

Exactly right!

I would add that ice has been shuffling the entire perimeter of the lake for ten thousand years—and perhaps more-so in the past hundred years. But it's the most recent three decades of "modern boating" has sent old-time residents to rescue their docked boats with breakwaters and hydraulic lifts. (Even for the oversized boats of our surprised newest residents, and there has been a remarkable turnover—no pun intended—of residents in Winter Harbor).

As for wave action, even the strongest of summer on-shore windstorms don't soak our dock. (Although our dock can get very hot, and a soaking is appreciated—wakes that throw gravel on the steps, not so much).

Originally Posted by Hillcountry

What, pray tell, is the RPM’s of your boat at “dead slow idle”? Anyone can turn an idle screw in or out...

True enough, and one can also select a propeller that allows speeds that conform to "no wake" speeds. But to have a ocean-racer to go a little bit faster, hire an attorney to argue the "no wake" law in court.

.

[Cal Coon]

Originally Posted by ApS

Normally, I'd agree, but our 1909 Winnipesaukee chart shows NO MARKERS at all. The first "improvement" was to go to anchored 4"x4" wooden markers, painted red and black. Ice moved them around, and some captains struck them at night—knocking the tops off to leave just a stump above the water.

Such boaters prompted the next improvement, which was PVC markers in red and black. Today, they break only if struck "dead-on", or if "sleds" break them off, level with the ice.

Now, if only we could agree with the color of the next "improvement".


Yes...We are all "above average".

Y'know, cataracts of the eyes can strike at middle age. Excluding advanced age, the one aggravating activity?

Boating in the sunshine—where direct UV rays are compounded by being reflected off the water, to take the double toll of skin cancers and cataracts.

BTW: Most everybody who has had cataract-surgery comments, "Color has come back".


Exactly right!

I would add that ice has been shuffling the entire perimeter of the lake for ten thousand years—and perhaps more-so in the past hundred years. But it's the most recent three decades of "modern boating" has sent old-time residents to rescue their boats with breakwaters and hydraulic lifts. (Even for the oversized boats of our surprised newest residents, and there has been a remarkable turnover—no pun intended—of residents in Winter Harbor).

As for wave action, even the strongest of summer on-shore windstorms don't soak our dock. (Although our dock can get very hot, and a soaking is appreciated—wakes that throw gravel on the steps, not so much).


True enough, and one can also select a propeller that allows speeds that conform to "no wake" speeds. But to have a ocean-racer to go a little bit faster, hire an attorney to argue the "no wake" law in court.

.

Maybe we should just ban all powerboats, regardless of size, and just allow sail boats, and anything operated by "people power". I don't know why anybody needs a powerboat anyways. All they do is cause trouble, (in more ways than one...!!)

[Bizer]

Bizer just received an eMail that said,

I want to give you an update on the NH No Wake law. Last Friday NH Representative Charlie St. Clair submitted legislation to change the No Wake law by removing any reference to 6 MPH. Simply: "VI. "Headway speed" means the slowest speed that a boat can be operated and maintain steerage way."

If it passes it will clear up this law for the final time.

What that means is, for example, if a boat can maintain steerage way at one mile-per-hour, it will take him/her about 25 minutes to pass the 0.4 miles from the Governor's Island Bridge to light #69.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Bizer

Bizer just received an eMail that said, What that means is, for example, if a boat can maintain steerage way at one mile-per-hour, it will take him/her about 25 minutes to pass the 0.4 miles from the Governor's Island Bridge to light #69.

The way the proposed law is worded, it's actually worse than that:

If you have a boat that can maintain steerage at 3 MPH and your boat is facing a 3 MPH current, the slowest you can go and maintain steerage is 0 MPH.

If you are in the same boat facing into a 4 MPH current, you can maintain steerage while moving backward at -1 MPH.

Perhaps someone that understands math should amend the proposal...

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by Dave R

The way the proposed law is worded, it's actually worse than that:

If you have a boat that can maintain steerage at 3 MPH and your boat is facing a 3 MPH current, the slowest you can go and maintain steerage is 0 MPH.

If you are in the same boat facing into a 4 MPH current, you can maintain steerage while moving backward at -1 MPH.

Perhaps someone that understands math should amend the proposal...

The law (and common sense) implies using a “no current” situation. Obviously, in any current you have to adjust accordingly...my point being we don’t need to pigeonhole the wording to include any speed. Just MAKE NO WAKE! How freakin’ hard is this to comprehend??

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by Hillcountry

The law (and common sense) implies using a “no current” situation. Obviously, in any current you have to adjust accordingly...my point being we don’t need to pigeonhole the wording to include any speed. Just MAKE NO WAKE! How freakin’ hard is this to comprehend??

Your absolutely correct but way too simple a solution for lawmakers. Everything needs convoluted language to confuse us. It’s how they keep their jobs.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Garcia]

I am 100% confident that I will be able to follow the spirit and letter of the law in any boat, in any circumstances. I won't need a speedometer, tachometer, or to turn around and see if I'm creating a wake. My guess is this is the case for pretty much anyone on the forum. Those who are not abiding by the letter and spirit of the law know it.

That said, I do enjoy reading the ongoing discussion about the different ways to interpret what I find to be a pretty straightforward issue.

[Patofnaud]

Originally Posted by joey2665

Your absolutely correct but way too simple a solution for lawmakers. Everything needs convoluted language to confuse us. It’s how they keep their jobs.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Exactly.

This is a Winni forum, not a Piscataqua River forum and to the best of my knowledge the only current is the Weirs Channel heading into Paugus, so everywhere else (Governors bridge, between Eagle and Gov, Bear Island post office, etc,,,,) there is ZERO current, meaning the wake your making, is the wake YOU are making. All the wording in the RSA means diddley. Wake = wake. Not rocket science.

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by Patofnaud

Exactly.



This is a Winni forum, not a Piscataqua River forum and to the best of my knowledge the only current is the Weirs Channel heading into Paugus, so everywhere else (Governors bridge, between Eagle and Gov, Bear Island post office, etc,,,,) there is ZERO current, meaning the wake your making, is the wake YOU are making. All the wording in the RSA means diddley. Wake = wake. Not rocket science.

I think Garcia said it best. “Spirit” of the law. Just don’t make a wake, it’s not difficult the problem is there is always someone looking to circumvent the system.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Hillcountry

The law (and common sense) implies using a “no current” situation. Obviously, in any current you have to adjust accordingly...my point being we don’t need to pigeonhole the wording to include any speed. Just MAKE NO WAKE! How freakin’ hard is this to comprehend??

You can't assume a law implies anything, that's the opposite of the point of laws. Otherwise we could just have one law that says: "don't do anything bad".

[tis]

Wow, how can we make something so easy so difficult???

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by Dave R

You can't assume a law implies anything, that's the opposite of the point of laws. Otherwise we could just have one law that says: "don't do anything bad".

This is a great example of why government gets bigger and bigger. The more we try to find loopholes, require specifics rather than use common sense, and try to over analyze the intent of rules and regulations, the more bureaucracy we create. I'm not trying to make a political statement, just pointing out the more we debate things, the more politicians try to clarify, and the more things get clogged up in the interpretation of the rules and regulations (which can lead to the court system).

[tis]

I agree with you again, Garcia. I can't believe how complicated some people have made this discussion.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by tis

I agree with you again, Garcia. I can't believe how complicated some people have made this discussion.

If you find this stuff complicated, perhaps boating isn't for you. No wake zones are pretty much the easiest part of boating to deal with.

[tis]

Dave R. I don't find the "stuff" complicated, I find the way you guys make such a big deal out of it complicated. As Garcia and Hill said no wake means no wake, how hard is that for you to understand? BTW, I bet I know a lot more about boating that you do.

[Woodsy]

It is so freaking simple...

A No Wake Zone is the same as School Zone or a Thickly Settled Zone... it defines an area where there is a reduced speed limit.

Headway Speed (6MPH) is same as the 20 MPH speed limit sign when you enter a School Zone. It tells you how fast you can thru the zone.

The law has to be absolute... and it is. 6MPH.

The only place this really even comes into play is the Weirs Channel and Meredith Bay... mostly the Weirs Channel. There is way too much boat traffic to have them move thru the Channel at 2 MPH...


Woodsy

[tis]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

It is so freaking simple...

A No Wake Zone is the same as School Zone or a Thickly Settled Zone... it defines an area where there is a reduced speed limit.

Headway Speed (6MPH) is same as the 20 MPH speed limit sign when you enter a School Zone. It tells you how fast you can thru the zone.

The law has to be absolute... and it is. 6MPH.

The only place this really even comes into play is the Weirs Channel and Meredith Bay... mostly the Weirs Channel. There is way too much boat traffic to have them move thru the Channel at 2 MPH...


Woodsy

But Woodsy why don't you understand??? It's not 6MPH, it's NO Wake!!!

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by tis

But Woodsy why don't you understand??? It's not 6MPH, it's NO Wake!!!

Unfortunately for you... that is NOT the way the law is written! Its not my fault you do not understand law.... perhaps a law class or two?

Woodsy

[DEJ]

Tis, Woodsy is correct, you do not understand the law as currently written.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Cal Coon

Maybe we should just ban all powerboats, regardless of size, and just allow sail boats, and anything operated by "people power". I don't know why anybody needs a powerboat anyways. All they do is cause trouble, (in more ways than one...!!)

If you ask APS this is what he would desire....

APS please get some new material....

[tis]

That is great! The wording of this law undoubtedly needs to be changed. I do not see why it would mean you could only go 1MPH though. If you are not making a wake, you could go faster than that. Really headway speed has nothing to do with the rule. IMO they don't need it.

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by tis

That is great! The wording of this law undoubtedly needs to be changed. I do not see why it would mean you could only go 1MPH though. If you are not making a wake, you could go faster than that. Really headway speed has nothing to do with the rule. IMO they don't need it.

Yup! 6 mph is a bit fast and causes a substantial wake from my Tritoon!
Imagine what a non-pontoon boat makes at that speed. Hope the law passes...

[Descant]

I think hovercraft and others have no wake, and are registered as vessels, so with this change they can go through the channel at 45 mph?

[TiltonBB]

I am glad Charlie St.Clair is finally doing something. He has shown up for only 70% of the legislative days and voted in only 52% of the legislative votes.

That is truly Part Time representation!

Want to fix it? Vote for someone else