Adjusting the No Wake Zone law

[BroadHopper]

Basically removing the 6 mph minimum clause.

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...d14a71b81.html

[tis]

Broad hopper, because I know a lot of people won't bother to open the link, I thought I would copy the article. Thanks for posting the link.

LACONIA — State Rep. Charlie St. Clair has started the process to draft a bill that would change a boating law restricting the speed of travel in no-wake zones.

Current law requires boats to slow down to “headway speed” in these zones. Headway speed is defined as 6 mph or the slowest speed to travel and maintain an ability to steer the boat.

St. Clair, R-Laconia, said a Gilford resident who lives on Governors Island urged that the reference to 6 mph be removed from the law. The resident said boat wakes can cause erosion, and many boats can maintain steerage at less than 6 mph.


Capt. Tim Dunleavy of the New Hampshire Marine Patrol said he has no objection to the proposed change and agreed that a speed of 6 mph is not usually needed to maintain steerage.

“There is room to clean up that definition,” he said.

He said the reference to 6 mph in the law came from the conditions in the Piscataqua River in Portsmouth, where such speed is needed because of strong current caused by tidal action.

Dunleavy said some homeowners along lakes assert that wakes erode land.

“People get impatient and travel too fast in no-wake zones,” he said. “I’m not sure if it rises to the level of causing erosions. There are places in no-wake zones where Mother Nature throws significantly more wave action than boat traffic.”

St. Clair filed a legislative service request for the bill. Such a request is the beginning of the drafting process to create a bill.

[joey2665]

I think the clarification will help. Although experienced boaters understand the law others read into it too much and just use 6 mph which can cause a wake especially on larger boats


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[The Real BigGuy]

No,no, not this (topic) again! AHAAAAAA


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[brk-lnt]

Pretty soon you're going to need to pack an overnight bag if you plan to travel more than a couple of miles on the lake.

[tis]

I agree with you and what you said, Joey. The clarification is needed. Proof of that is BigGuy's comment: " no, not this again!" We have gone over and over it and there is no agreement. There are those that still think the law means you can always go 6 MPH in a NWZ.

[AC2717]

Are marine patrol going to have to spend time in NWZ with a radar gun?? Seriously this rep out of Laconia according to the story, should focus on improving his town and the economic down turn they are experiencing when a majority are experiencing growth, instead of what a resident from Gilford sees from his/her Gov. Island Ivory tower. Sad thing is this clown represents me and I cannot even vote against him because I cannot vote in Laconia. We have a department for this it's called DES. This is a "do nothing" bill proposal that is wasting time

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by AC2717

Are marine patrol going to have to spend time in NWZ with a radar gun?? Seriously this rep, that lives in Gilford and is a rep out of Laconia according to the story, should focus on improving his towns and the economic down turn they are experiencing when a majority are experiencing growth, instead of what he sees from his Gov. Island Ivory tower. Sad thing is this clown represents me and I cannot even vote against him because I cannot vote in Laconia. We have a department for this it's called DES. This is a "do nothing" bill proposal that is wasting time

For those that are unaware Charlie St.Clair the State Representative referred to is the head of Laconia Motorcycle Week. He also owns the Laconia Antique Center in downtown Laconia.

Also, not all of the houses on Governors Island are waterfront high value homes. There are numerous inland homes that have a much lower value.

But, most importantly, the article did not say he lives on Governors Island and he does not. He lives in Laconia.

[Lakewinn1]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

Pretty soon you're going to need to pack an overnight bag if you plan to travel more than a couple of miles on the lake.

Couldn't agree with you more!

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

For those that are unaware Charlie St.Clair the State Representative referred to is the head of Laconia Motorcycle Week. He also owns the Laconia Antique Center in downtown Laconia.

Also, not all of the houses on Governors Island are waterfront high value homes. There are numerous inland homes that have a much lower value.

But, most importantly, the article did not say he lives on Governors Island and he does not. He lives in Laconia.

I stand corrected and misread, thank you for the clarification, I will edit my post to be correct, but will stand by my opinions of it the proposal

[Winni P]

Originally Posted by AC2717

Are marine patrol going to have to spend time in NWZ with a radar gun?? Seriously this rep out of Laconia according to the story, should focus on improving his town and the economic down turn they are experiencing when a majority are experiencing growth, instead of what a resident from Gilford sees from his/her Gov. Island Ivory tower. Sad thing is this clown represents me and I cannot even vote against him because I cannot vote in Laconia. We have a department for this it's called DES. This is a "do nothing" bill proposal that is wasting time

Correct me if I'm wrong. If they remove the 6mph wording, they won't need a radar gun, they would just look at the size of your wake, right?

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by Winni P

Correct me if I'm wrong. If they remove the 6mph wording, they won't need a radar gun, they would just look at the size of your wake, right?

was being sarcastic

[swnoel]

Just so I get this right... it's NOT the landowners that removed the vegetation and changed the shoreline that's responsible for the erosion... it's the boaters? Makes perfect sense to me! The real problem is that you can't fix stupid.

[tis]

This is NOT adding a law, it is not changing anything. It is trying to clarify that you can't just go 6 MPH as many of you argue, but that NO WAKE means just that.

[Bear Islander]

So the purpose of this bill is to get people to go SLOWER than 6mph in no wake zones? Seriously?

I live on the Bear Island NWZ and would love it if people went through under 12mph. In the summer about one boat every hour, on average, goes through at FULL SPEED!

I think about half of them don't know they are in a NWZ and the other half don't care. Plus most boater have an exaggerated idea of what 6mph is.

If Capt. Dunleavy wants to actually do something constructive about NWZ violations he should send a patrol boat out to Bear and have them hide around the corner. Usually the patrol boats sit out in plain sight. This causes people to act like good citizens... until the patrol boat leaves.

[tis]

The purpose is to make people understand that NO Wake is just that, BI. To make people understand that it's not Headway Speed, not 6 MPH, it's NO WAKE. You are right though. It needs to be enforced if anything is going to change no matter how they write the law.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by tis

The purpose is to make people understand that NO Wake is just that, BI. To make people understand that it's not Headway Speed, not 6 MPH, it's NO WAKE. You are right though. It needs to be enforced if anything is going to change no matter how they write the law.

What does No Wake actually mean. Every boat, including canoes and kayaks, produces a wake. At 1mph you have a small wake. Yes the wake becomes larger as speed increases. But at no point in increased speed does a wake suddenly appear when there was no wake before.

I have had people tell me they take their PWC through the NWZ at full speed because they don't produce and appreciable wake at high speeds. Which is true. However they are clearly violating the 6mph rule.

Hydrofoils produce very little wake. Will they be able to go through NWZs at high speed under the new rule? How about ground effect boats that actually fly a couple of feet above the water and never touch the water when at speed? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiLxXWgwj0M

Anyway in most instances NWZs are not about wake, they are about safe speed in a congested area. I took part in advocating for the BI NWZ, and I don't think the word erosion was ever used by us. It was about safety.

[Bizer]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

So the purpose of this bill is to get people to go SLOWER than 6mph in no wake zones? Seriously? ...

That is the precise purpose of this law. The bill is being pushed by a Governors Island resident who wants exactly that. This has NIMBY written all over it.

Consider the following. A boat in Paugus Bay wants to get through the Weirs Channel. Normal current in the Weirs Channel is about 1.5 MPH, but if the Lakeport Dam is letting out lots of water the current can get upwards of 4 MPH. If, for example, the current in the Weirs Channel is 2.5 MPH, and the boat can maintain steerage way at 3 MPH, then it will take the boater one hour to get through the half-mile NO-WAKE zone. What happens if the boat behind him needs 4 MPH to maintain steerage way and there is no room for passing?

Last September, I was made aware of this bill. When Bizer did its annual survey in September, I was piloting a boat that could maintain steerageway at about 2 MPH. According to the GPS, I was going 5.1 MPH when this photo of my wake was taken. Those are ripples, not a wake.

[The Real BigGuy]

Geez, I can’t believe this


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[The Real BigGuy]

I mean the twisting and turning people will go thru to try and justify something. They are finally getting things right. If you see white behind you you are making a wake. Get over it!


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Billy Bob]

The State of NewHampshire has more laws and restrictions on boating then any other state in the country. In Florida we have substantially more boats per cap.
And basically stick with the Coast Guard guidelines . The lake is used heavy about 8 week ends a year but we have restrictions that imply full usage 365 days a year. Lighten up with this crap

[MAXUM]

There are those that really believe it is possible to legislate the stupidity out of people.

My opinion of this language change is that to me it creates more ambiguity in the sense that it doesn't specify a maximum speed. At least with 6 MPH it indicated a bit of a measuring stick - not that it was perfect but its something. If a captain doesn't get 6 MPH what makes you think they will understand "the minimum speed necessary to maintain safe steerage".

[tis]

Maxum, all you need to do to see if you are making a wake is look behind you. How easy is that?

[Cal Coon]

You can change the law all you want, but I bet any amount of money it will have NO impact on anyone's behavior towards their wake, and NOTHING will change... Complete waste of time.

[MDoug]

Originally Posted by Cal Coon

You can change the law all you want, but I bet any amount of money it will have NO impact on anyone's behavior towards their wake, and NOTHING will change... Complete waste of time.

The lady on the point at Y Landing has scared many of us into dead slow by yelling and flailing her arms, tho

[Descant]

I agree that NH should have boating laws that are similar to other states. However, as long as we have the 150 foot safe passage law, NWZ in places like Bear Island and Eagle Island should be unnecessary.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Descant

I agree that NH should have boating laws that are similar to other states. However, as long as we have the 150 foot safe passage law, NWZ in places like Bear Island and Eagle Island should be unnecessary.

Sorry, but that idea is just nuts.

Before the BI NWZ was created we would sit on the porch and watch the near misses. The area between Bear and Pine was the definition of an accident waiting to happen. The combination of high speed, high volume and going around a blind corner was treacherous. There were collisions, I don't remember the numbers.

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by Descant

I agree that NH should have boating laws that are similar to other states. However, as long as we have the 150 foot safe passage law, NWZ in places like Bear Island and Eagle Island should be unnecessary.

Completely disagree. Many boaters can't even measure the 150ft in their head, never mind obeying the law itself (If they even know the law exists). The NWZ is absolutely needed especially in those two particular areas.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by tis

Maxum, all you need to do to see if you are making a wake is look behind you. How easy is that?

For starters it's pretty much impossible to move a boat without causing some sort of wake. So the term "no wake" is just stupid and really shouldn't be used.

Furthermore in the absence of any specific parameters governing speed or size it's a judgment call of the captain and those vary greatly. Again good luck with that.


I get what the spirit of the law is in regards to "no wake" but when somebody comes through a NWZ plowing water and you get mad - just remember that under the current definition it's the slowest possible speed and still maintain steerage. Well this this example maybe the captain feels that going that fast is needed to comfortably meet (for him or her) that requirement. Are they breaking the law? After all when you've got some decent forward momentum it's far easier to maintain a straight course of travel than if you're barely moving and trying to do the same thing.

[tis]

I disagree with you. I have watched plenty of boats causing no visible wake. I think if Marine Patrol had a bigger presence in NW Zones, almost ALL boats could manage to somehow maintain steerage without making a wake Funny that.

[The Real BigGuy]

Well, as I said, here we go again


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Cal Coon]

Originally Posted by MDoug

The lady on the point at Y Landing has scared many of us into dead slow by yelling and flailing her arms, tho

I have read about this crazy lady a few times on here now, so I'm looking forward to taking a ride by next summer to see if I can attract her attention just for the entertainment value..!!

[Lakegeezer]

We could use a low wake zone to go with the no wake zone. The no wake signs seem silly in some spots, but spot on in others. A no wake should mean it, but allowing up to 6mph in a low wake zone would get better compliance than expecting everyone to crawl along.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by swnoel

Just so I get this right... it's NOT the landowners that removed the vegetation and changed the shoreline that's responsible for the erosion... it's the boaters? Makes perfect sense to me! The real problem is that you can't fix stupid.

Actually, these are two separate problems. Both cause erosion, independently of each other. And of course when combined, it's even worse.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by MDoug

The lady on the point at Y Landing has scared many of us into dead slow by yelling and flailing her arms, tho

I have gone to the Y-Landing just about every day during the summer, for many many years, to get the newspaper. I have never had this lady yell at me or wave her arms. Never!

Perhaps you are passing by her property at too great a speed. I recommend slowing down before you get to her area and see what she does.

[bilproject]

No wake zones are about safety not erosion within the no wake zone. My observations are that no wake zones actually increase erosion in the shoreline adjacent to the areas just outside the no wake zone. Boats on plane generate a wake of X. Boats coming off or to plane create a wake of 4X. If it were about erosion we should have no areas where we cause 100 % of the boats traveling an area come off plane and return to cruising speed. Over the years boats on the lake have become progressively larger and faster. This makes tight areas smaller and more dangerous requiring the captain to be precise in navigating tight areas to maintain 150 feet. Mix that with a large variation of the captain's skill level and knowledge of the lake and you have a situation ripe for an accident. While no fan of no-wake zones they reflect the reality of what is required to keep us all safe.

[MDoug]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I have gone to the Y-Landing just about every day during the summer, for many many years, to get the newspaper. I have never had this lady yell at me or wave her arms. Never!

Perhaps you are passing by her property at too great a speed. I recommend slowing down before you get to her area and see what she does.

Shes been yelling at just about everybody for at least twenty years now. Maybe she has a crush on you

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by bilproject

No wake zones are about safety not erosion within the no wake zone. My observations are that no wake zones actually increase erosion in the shoreline adjacent to the areas just outside the no wake zone. Boats on plane generate a wake of X. Boats coming off or to plane create a wake of 4X. If it were about erosion we should have no areas where we cause 100 % of the boats traveling an area come off plane and return to cruising speed. Over the years boats on the lake have become progressively larger and faster. This makes tight areas smaller and more dangerous requiring the captain to be precise in navigating tight areas to maintain 150 feet. Mix that with a large variation of the captain's skill level and knowledge of the lake and you have a situation ripe for an accident. While no fan of no-wake zones they reflect the reality of what is required to keep us all safe.

I’m sure “SAFETY” was the primary reason for making that ridiculously huge no-wake zone in Meredith Bay.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by bilproject

No wake zones are about safety not erosion within the no wake zone. My observations are that no wake zones actually increase erosion in the shoreline adjacent to the areas just outside the no wake zone. Boats on plane generate a wake of X. Boats coming off or to plane create a wake of 4X. If it were about erosion we should have no areas where we cause 100 % of the boats traveling an area come off plane and return to cruising speed.
Over the years boats on the lake have become progressively larger and faster. This makes tight areas smaller and more dangerous requiring the captain to be precise in navigating tight areas to maintain 150 feet. Mix that with a large variation of the captain's skill level and knowledge of the lake and you have a situation ripe for an accident. While no fan of no-wake zones they reflect the reality of what is required to keep us all safe.

Said another way, would "oversized" be a better description? Also increasing are exhaust fumes and noise—taking-in exhaust pipe noise and over-amplified stereo systems.

Using a 28-footer for waterskiing or tubing in a harbor long-protected by Mother Nature will erode the shoreline. Too often, relaxing on my dock, I'll get wet—can't hear my radio—or have to put a caller on hold.

At one time, we had no boatlifts, seawalls or breakwaters in Winter Harbor. These days, they're popping up like mushrooms after an August rain.

Alas, we have no Low-Wake zones—and only one tiny No-Wake area—especially sensible so Loons still can raise their families.

If you've come to the Lakes Region to maintain your hectic "city-speed", you've come to the wrong place.

[The Real BigGuy]

Geez, the lake is beautiful! Slow down and enjoy it.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Garcia]

Based on the comments on this thread and others, the whole idea here will not solve any real or perceived issues. Those who flagrantly disregard NWZs, either by choice or ignorance, will continue to do so as will those who parse the language looking for inconsistencies or things that are open for interpretation.

Moreover, it would be really interesting to see increased MP presence and enforcement. My guess is that should that happen, there would be lots of complaints about cost, MP being in the wrong place, unjust tickets, etc.

I'm confident I know what to do when I encounter a NWZ now and should the wording change. Most important, I get a kick out of reading different thoughts and opinions on the subject here on the forum!

[BrunoSR]

More MP Officers? Yes, I would agree! Last year I think I saw 4 MP boats total, all season!! Except for the 4th of July. I really didn’t see any MP boats on the 4th either, however I did see a lot of blue lights!!

Of the four I did see, two were at the same time. We were coming out of the Weirs channel heading into the big lake. We passed two marine patrol boats, they were heading into the channel. The first MP boat had two MP officers on it. I waved, they both waved back. The second MP boat, the old war horse boat, had three MP officers on board. I waved, two waved back, the third told me to slow down!!! REALY!!

[Garcia]

In case it wasn't clear from my post, I am all for an increased, more visible presence of the MP!

[BrunoSR]

Originally Posted by Garcia

In case it wasn't clear from my post, I am all for an increased, more visible presence of the MP!

I hope you didn't think that I thought you weren't. I was agreeing with you.

I guess I was pointing out that even the MP officers don't agree on what the proper boat speed. I was clearly going slow, I bet I wasn't doing 3 MPH against the current. I guess I can say 4 out of 5 officers agreed with me LOL!!

[LIforrelaxin]

These threads help me remember why I stepped out of fighting hard for boating rights in NH.... everyone has there own thoughts. And there are valid points to most arguments. But no one ever seems to want to discuss compromise.

Do a search on "what does no wake mean" You will find plenty of definitions most notably this one:

http://wow.uscgaux.info/Uploads_wowII/095-45-01/Slow_No_Wake.pdf

What most all the definitions have in common is that there is no mention of speed relative to no wake. This law will do what some of us have been fighting for years for, which is to bring the NH legislation in line with Federal laws, concerning boating regulations.

[Little Bear]

The article in the original post stated that some guy on Governor's Island was complaining about erosion caused by wakes of boats going 6 mph. Give me a break! As I've said in prior posts, what about those of us that are subjected to 3 foot rollers coming in from wake surf boats and cruisers? What about those people that live on Locke's Island facing mainland? This is not a no-wake zone, and these people are subjected to huge amounts of traffic and substantial wakes. Come see the damage to my shoreline that these wakes cause, then talk to me about erosion. But as I also said before, I knew what I was getting into when I bought the property, so I'm not complaining about the erosion or the traffic. What I am complaining about are the people that are crying over a ripple of water or "white foam" behind a boat that is going slower than a duck swimming.

Let's just make the entire lake a no-wake zone, then see what the next thing is that people will complain about.

[MAXUM]

Even the USCG Aux states the following in their no wake definition:

It has nothing to do with you actually making a small wake or not. The speed and maintaining steerage depends on your boat and boat characteristics.

DING DING DING, exactly, although as I previously stated the ability to confidently maintain safe steerage is a direct reflection of the driver's skill and ability to handle whatever boat they are operating and the circumstance and conditions at the time. Thus the relationship between wake size and a designated NWZ that everyone seems to think should be wave free is fundamentally flawed.

[Biggd]

Everyone needs to just slow down. What's the rush?

[pault842]

Big waste of time. Does anyone think someone who speeds through a no-wake zone is going to now slow down if they make this change?

[bilproject]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

I’m sure “SAFETY” was the primary reason for making that ridiculously huge no-wake zone in Meredith Bay.

Yes as crazy as it seems that whole no wake zone was extended due to documented injuries at Meredith Marina due to the large amount of wake in the area. All of Meredith bay is travelled pretty much in a north south direction so there is no confusion in the sea to break up wake.

[Reilly]

Originally Posted by Little Bear

The article in the original post stated that some guy on Governor's Island was complaining about erosion caused by wakes of boats going 6 mph. Give me a break! As I've said in prior posts, what about those of us that are subjected to 3 foot rollers coming in from wake surf boats and cruisers? What about those people that live on Locke's Island facing mainland? This is not a no-wake zone, and these people are subjected to huge amounts of traffic and substantial wakes. Come see the damage to my shoreline that these wakes cause, then talk to me about erosion. But as I also said before, I knew what I was getting into when I bought the property, so I'm not complaining about the erosion or the traffic. What I am complaining about are the people that are crying over a ripple of water or "white foam" behind a boat that is going slower than a duck swimming.

Let's just make the entire lake a no-wake zone, then see what the next thing is that people will complain about.

Let's just say NO Power Boats

[Taz]

Originally Posted by ApS

Alas, we have no Low-Wake zones—and only one tiny No-Wake area—especially sensible so Loons still can raise their families.

I always find it comical when shorefront owners complain about boats interfering with raising of Loons and interfering with their nests. You do know that Loons build their nests on the shoreline where all the "cottages", "McMansions" are built? If not for all of these there would be plenty of shoreline for Loons nests. All the shorefront owners pushed the Loons out. Not just boaters interfering with Loons.

[ApS]

Because their feet are far back on their bodies, Loons must wriggle on shore to build and tend to their nests.

Because Loons select low and marshy areas for their nests, Loons' favored habitat is unsuitable for building cottages and McMansions.

Even before actually raising their families, Loons are highly territorial. With that requirement of a huge "Lebensraum", Loon nests are rarely located in sight of one another. So territorial, even much larger birds are in danger of a fatal Loon attack.

One visit to Winter Harbor's single favorable marshy area would enlighten those who think boaters aren't a problem.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by ApS

Because their feet are far back on their bodies, Loons must wriggle on shore to build and tend to their nests.

Because Loons select low and marshy areas for their nests, Loons' favored habitat is unsuitable for building cottages and McMansions.

Even before actually raising their families, Loons are highly territorial. With that requirement of a huge "Lebensraum", Loon nests are rarely located in sight of one another. So territorial, even much larger birds are in danger of a fatal Loon attack.

One visit to Winter Harbor's single favorable marshy area would enlighten those who think boaters aren't a problem.

ApS, I am not sure what you are trying to get at with your post... Concerns over loons and defining the correct verbiage for no-wake legislation aren't really the same topic, and in fact are really quite unrelated.

Boaters are indeed a problem for loons, but changing how we define no-wake isn't going to change that.

People will always break the no-wake zone, no mater how it is defined, and yep on occasion it will happen around a loon nest, and might cause a problem.
I have also seen loon nest problems in area's where the wind causes the wave action etc.

You always seem to amaze me with how you try and argue problems. Tying unrelated issue together, to try and justify something....

[Taz]

Originally Posted by ApS

Because their feet are far back on their bodies, Loons must wriggle on shore to build and tend to their nests.

Because Loons select low and marshy areas for their nests, Loons' favored habitat is unsuitable for building cottages and McMansions.

Even before actually raising their families, Loons are highly territorial. With that requirement of a huge "Lebensraum", Loon nests are rarely located in sight of one another. So territorial, even much larger birds are in danger of a fatal Loon attack.

One visit to Winter Harbor's single favorable marshy area would enlighten those who think boaters aren't a problem.

so what you are saying is, there is not enough suitable nesting sites on the many miles of shoreline on Winnipesaukee? Which means its not boats or shoreline houses preventing loon nesting, its just not naturally suitable to nest on Winnipesaukee.

Are you sure in the early days of building houses on the shoreline of Winnipesaukee people were not filling in low marshy areas to make it suitable to build?

[tis]

I don't think finding a place to nest is an issue for the loons. I think the problem is when boats either make too big a wake while they are nesting, causing the nest to flood and also when the baby is small and the mother and father loon take it out into the boat traffic. I have seen them almost get run over many times.

[Taz]

Originally Posted by ApS

Because their feet are far back on their bodies, Loons must wriggle on shore to build and tend to their nests.

Because Loons select low and marshy areas for their nests, Loons' favored habitat is unsuitable for building cottages and McMansions.

Even before actually raising their families, Loons are highly territorial. With that requirement of a huge "Lebensraum", Loon nests are rarely located in sight of one another. So territorial, even much larger birds are in danger of a fatal Loon attack.

One visit to Winter Harbor's single favorable marshy area would enlighten those who think boaters aren't a problem.

After doing some research I found loons prefer steep drop offs close to shore so they approach their nest underwater. I also found loons use the man made nesting platforms because of extensive shoreline development. So I call foul on APS. The extensive shoreline development is to blame for the lack of nesting sites on Winni. All the houses on lake Winni shoreline drove the loons out.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Taz

so what you are saying is, there is not enough suitable nesting sites on the many miles of shoreline on Winnipesaukee? Which means its not boats or shoreline houses preventing loon nesting, its just not naturally suitable to nest on Winnipesaukee.

Are you sure in the early days of building houses on the shoreline of Winnipesaukee people were not filling in low marshy areas to make it suitable to build?

• To the first comment, I've only referred to the area I know best—which is Winter Harbor.

• Of the six or seven shoreline miles of Winter Harbor, there has been only one documented Loon nest for as long as I've been here.

• As to "early days of building houses", there are now expensive houses on shoreline lots my Dad used to call "unbuildable". Also, older maps list large areas of Alton Bay as "unbuildable".

• Loon-protection has never been a consideration in shoreline development.

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

ApS, I am not sure what you are trying to get at with your post... Concerns over loons and defining the correct verbiage for no-wake legislation aren't really the same topic, and in fact are really quite unrelated.

Boaters are indeed a problem for loons, but changing how we define no-wake isn't going to change that.

People will always break the no-wake zone, no matter how it is defined, and yep on occasion it will happen around a loon nest, and might cause a problem. I have also seen loon nest problems in area's where the wind causes the wave action etc.

You always seem to amaze me with how you try and argue problems. Tying unrelated issue together, to try and justify something....

• They're related: I'm answering the previous quote—one that emphasizes Winnipesaukee's Loon Population.

• Let's see...No-wake zones don't include Loons' safety—but they do?

Originally Posted by Taz

After doing some research I found loons prefer steep drop offs close to shore so they approach their nest underwater. I also found loons use the man made nesting platforms because of extensive shoreline development. So I call foul on APS. The extensive shoreline development is to blame for the lack of nesting sites on Winni. All the houses on lake Winni shoreline drove the loons out.

• ApS is content with Loons as fowl.

• A B&W pre-war photo (taken from Tuftonboro's Camp Boycroft) of three miles of Winter Harbor's northeast shoreline showed only one human structure! Fortunately, that entire shoreline has never been suitable for Loon nests.

• Contradicting your undocumented website, the ONE nest in Winter Harbor (formerly Tuftonboro Bay) is in shallow water.

• However suitable the shoreline, nesting platforms are highly desirable, as they protect against egg-robbing raids by Racoons.

• As recently as within the past decade, we had no boatlifts, seawalls or breakwaters inside Winter Harbor's protected waters.

• Photos I've taken of Winter Harbor's northeast shoreline—only a few years apart—are unrecognizable. Rocks—and some large boulders—are falling out of the shoreline!

[Biggd]

You people are all looney, but have a Merry Christmas!

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by ApS

• As to "early days of building houses", there are now expensive houses on shoreline lots my Dad used to call "unbuildable".

So then your father didn't really understand what he was observing?

[Taz]

• ApS is content with Loons as fowl.

• A B&W pre-war photo (taken from Tuftonboro's Camp Boycroft) of three miles of Winter Harbor's northeast shoreline showed only one human structure! Fortunately, that entire shoreline has never been suitable for Loon nests.

• Contradicting your undocumented website, the ONE nest in Winter Harbor (formerly Tuftonboro Bay) is in shallow water.

• However suitable the shoreline, nesting platforms are highly desirable, as they protect against egg-robbing raids by Racoons.

• As recently as within the past decade, we had no boatlifts, seawalls or breakwaters inside Winter Harbor's protected waters.

• Photos I've taken of Winter Harbor's northeast shoreline—only a few years apart—are unrecognizable. Rocks—and some large boulders—are falling out of the shoreline!

Maybe the one shallow water nest is because there is nothing else available.

nesting platforms may help loons vs. racoons but the main reason for nesting platforms is because of shoreline development.

Boatlifts, seawalls, breakwaters proves my point. Shoreline development is pushing loon nesting out.

wild animals all over the world are struggling because of losing habitat to human development. Winnipesaukee loons are no different. Bottomline: There would be a lot more loon nests on Winnipesaukee shoreline if not for all the shoreline development by humans.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Taz

• ApS is content with Loons as fowl.

• A B&W pre-war photo (taken from Tuftonboro's Camp Boycroft) of three miles of Winter Harbor's northeast shoreline showed only one human structure! Fortunately, that entire shoreline has never been suitable for Loon nests.

• Contradicting your undocumented website, the ONE nest in Winter Harbor (formerly Tuftonboro Bay) is in shallow water.

• However suitable the shoreline, nesting platforms are highly desirable, as they protect against egg-robbing raids by Racoons.

• As recently as within the past decade, we had no boatlifts, seawalls or breakwaters inside Winter Harbor's protected waters.

• Photos I've taken of Winter Harbor's northeast shoreline—only a few years apart—are unrecognizable. Rocks—and some large boulders—are falling out of the shoreline!

Maybe the one shallow water nest is because there is nothing else available.

nesting platforms may help loons vs. racoons but the main reason for nesting platforms is because of shoreline development.

Boatlifts, seawalls, breakwaters proves my point. Shoreline development is pushing loon nesting out.

wild animals all over the world are struggling because of losing habitat to human development. Winnipesaukee loons are no different. Bottomline: There would be a lot more loon nests on Winnipesaukee shoreline if not for all the shoreline development by humans.

Protecting those nesting sites that remain becomes even more important.

Shouldn't modern Humanity's dominion over wild animals be expected to take a turn for the better?

Most images of floating artificial Loon nest sites don't show any human habitation in the background. Some installers (the "Loon Rangers") of floating artificial Loon nest sites are shown wading out to anchor them.



It's especially incumbent on oversized boats and PWCs to observe the security of our remaining Loon population on Lake Winnipesaukee. IMO.

[tis]

Good advice, APS!

[Lakegeezer]

As long as this thread has gone loony, its worth pointing out that the natural habitat for loons is moving north. There aren't many loons in MA and CT any more and the population was declining in NH before Loon Preservation Committee (LPC) started in 1975. If you like loons, join and donate to the LPC. It is why we have so many.

Today, there are three times the 1975 population, partly because the LPC puts out almost 100 artificial nests each year, and rescues loons in distress.

Shoreline building and boat wake are issues for sure, but the changing climate is a factor in moving the species north. With more spikes in temperature and rainfall during the incubation season (May-July), eggs are getting hotter and nests are swamped by rising waters. This lowers the hatch rate. Here, artificial nests can help.

When loons build natural nests, they don't always pick the no-wake zones anyway. Then, Darwinism comes into play, with the successful loon pairs choosing a better spot.

[Taz]

Within the Adirondack Park, some of the highest rates of development are occurring along lakeshores. The development of shoreline for seasonal, residential homes often creates an increase in recreational lake activity that coincides with critical breeding and nesting times for the common loon.

Ecological changes which have been documented as a result of shoreline development include: fewer territorial loons inhabiting developed lakes, decreased availability of potential nesting sites, reduced hatching success of loon pairs in close proximity to developed areas and increased susceptibility to scavenging predators that are attracted to human refuse. Currently, many local and regional studies are being conducted in order to assess the impacts of shoreline development and increased recreational activity on the reproductive success of loons.

The above is an excerpt from one study of many found on-line.

It's simple, Loons build nests on the shoreline, extensive shoreline development takes away those potential nests sites.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Taz

Within the Adirondack Park, some of the highest rates of development are occurring along lakeshores. The development of shoreline for seasonal, residential homes often creates an increase in recreational lake activity that coincides with critical breeding and nesting times for the common loon.

Ecological changes which have been documented as a result of shoreline development include: fewer territorial loons inhabiting developed lakes, decreased availability of potential nesting sites, reduced hatching success of loon pairs in close proximity to developed areas and increased susceptibility to scavenging predators that are attracted to human refuse. Currently, many local and regional studies are being conducted in order to assess the impacts of shoreline development and increased recreational activity on the reproductive success of loons.

The above is an excerpt from one study of many found on-line.

It's simple, Loons build nests on the shoreline, extensive shoreline development takes away those potential nests sites.

OK, but none of that changes the basic point that boats can be bad for loons

[Taz]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

OK, but none of that changes the basic point that boats can be bad for loons

My point was it's not just boats that are bad for loons. Many shoreline property owners don't want to acknowledge that.

[MAXUM]

Human interaction as a whole whether it be for recreational purposes or development purposes impacts wildlife. It's just a matter of where that tipping point is where either animals leave and don't come back or stay put and adapt to human presence.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Taz

My point was it's not just boats that are bad for loons. Many shoreline property owners don't want to acknowledge that.

Shoreline property owners pay their share of taxes; otherwise, all they can do is to wring their hands over shoreline development—which was entirely beyond their control.

The intensification in number and size of boat wakes are razing Winnipesaukee's shorelines. Future damage to shorelines is something that can be controlled.

[Taz]

Originally Posted by ApS

Shoreline property owners pay their share of taxes; otherwise, all they can do is to wring their hands over shoreline development—which was entirely beyond their control.

The intensification in number and size of boat wakes are razing Winnipesaukee's shorelines. Future damage to shorelines is something that can be controlled.

I pay my fair share of taxes in a Winni shorefront town as well, on 2 properties. Not sure what that has to do with loons.

Just because shoreline developement can not be reversed does not change the fact that shoreline development is the major reason for loons losing most of their nesting sites.

I disagree with intensification in number and size of boat wakes. There are more and more pontoon boats and less and less large cruiser type boats. There are more and more people buying property off the lake locally and buying a small day boat/pontoon boat instead of living on a large cruiser for a weekend. Alot less large cruisers on the lake and many more pontoon and day boats.

[kawishiwi]

Originally Posted by Taz

I pay my fair share of taxes in a Winni shorefront town as well, on 2 properties. Not sure what that has to do with loons.

Just because shoreline developement can not be reversed does not change the fact that shoreline development is the major reason for loons losing most of their nesting sites.

I disagree with intensification in number and size of boat wakes. There are more and more pontoon boats and less and less large cruiser type boats. There are more and more people buying property off the lake locally and buying a small day boat/pontoon boat instead of living on a large cruiser for a weekend. Alot less large cruisers on the lake and many more pontoon and day boats.

I think you might be missing the newly prevalent wake boats, designed to make bigger wakes, and often operated in otherwise sheltered locations.

I spent 6 summers canoeing in a million acres of almost completely non-motorized lakes on the Minn./Ontario border where loons are prevalent. Every loon nest I saw was on a very wind protected and level, small shrubby shoreline, usually on a small island.
I would guess a great number of lakeside homes dont have this type of location and do not affect loon nesting at all. Homes back in coves are more likely to affect likely nesting but only if the right kind of shoreline is present. However just a number of homes & the associated activity would disrupt nearby nesting locations.
The nearness of people activity and the 'artificial' waves of boats in otherwise protected areas are a big problem.
Of course fishing is a great risk to loons as a fatal dose of lead is one large split shot. One. Fatal. And then discarded line is a scourge also, to all kinds of wildlife.

So...us fisherman need to abide by the no lead law & keep our discarded line in the boat. Wake boaters need to stay away from sheltered coves. All cove goers should be aware. Prime nesting areas could be protected or even conserved. Loons should be left alone even by kayakers.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Taz

I pay my fair share of taxes in a Winni shorefront town as well, on 2 properties. Not sure what that has to do with loons.

Just because shoreline developement can not be reversed does not change the fact that shoreline development is the major reason for loons losing most of their nesting sites.

I disagree with intensification in number and size of boat wakes. There are more and more pontoon boats and less and less large cruiser type boats. There are more and more people buying property off the lake locally and buying a small day boat/pontoon boat instead of living on a large cruiser for a weekend. Alot less large cruisers on the lake and many more pontoon and day boats.

• Developers in my particular Florida County are required to donate to the County a less-desirable building lot that is equivalent in size to the one they are developing.

• That unbuilt lot is added to the County's Conservation Trust. (Which abuts 100s of thousands of Federally-owned wildlife refuge acres—where Jet-Skis are prohibited).

• Well intentioned Lakes Region Towns could set aside tax monies to buy-back suitable Loon shoreline habitat for restoration. However, there's no point in initiating such a program, as oversized boaters will continually assault such restorations.

• As for "boating intensity", you probably didn't know that Johnson's Cove once had a waterski slalom course set up in its calm waters. Visit Johnson's Cove on any summer weekend to see what "boating intensity" looks like today.

Maybe a photograph of boat houses, docks, boat lifts, breakwaters or dock awnings that have been "downsized" would help me understand the reduction in boat wakes mentioned above?

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

So then your father didn't really understand what he was observing?

As a life-long aviator in the 'Boros, he had a bird's-eye view of land that was compromised in one way or another.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Taz

My point was it's not just boats that are bad for loons. Many shoreline property owners don't want to acknowledge that.

I agree completely that virtually all development and human activity at the scale that Winni experiences has a negative impact on loons or other aspects of the environment. But I'm pretty sure you're not suggesting that none of us use the lake.

Instead the reasonable conclusion is that we should all trim back a bit in ways that are relatively easy. Just for example--the waterfront homeowners you point at (and I'm included in this category) should make sure to have natural buffers between their houses at the water, not broad green lawns with fertilizer.

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

I agree completely that virtually all development and human activity at the scale that Winni experiences has a negative impact on loons or other aspects of the environment. But I'm pretty sure you're not suggesting that none of us use the lake.

Instead the reasonable conclusion is that we should all trim back a bit in ways that are relatively easy. Just for example--the waterfront homeowners you point at (and I'm included in this category) should make sure to have natural buffers between their houses at the water, not broad green lawns with fertilizer.

You can't put the Genie back in the bottle. As my dad use to say when I did something that wasn't smart "this is the first day of the rest of your life, get it right"!

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Biggd

You can't put the Genie back in the bottle. As my dad use to say when I did something that wasn't smart "this is the first day of the rest of your life, get it right"!

Exactly. We should not abandon homes, boats, etc. We should just use them right

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by ApS

Protecting those nesting sites that remain becomes even more important.

Shouldn't modern Humanity's dominion over wild animals be expected to take a turn for the better?

Most images of floating artificial Loon nest sites don't show any human habitation in the background. Some installers (the "Loon Rangers") of floating artificial Loon nest sites are shown wading out to anchor them.

< Image Removed >

It's especially incumbent on oversized boats and PWCs to observe the security of our remaining Loon population on Lake Winnipesaukee. IMO.

< Image Removed >

ApS,

Maybe you haven't heard but the numbers I heard this year on Loon population show that there are more loons now in NH then there where when efforts were started to protect them.

What does that mean? It means that the efforts in place are working in large. While yes there could be and are situations where for a variety of reasons some nest sites are not working out.....Those instances aren't jeopardizing the come back of the loon population.

Trying to insinuate that no-wake zone violators are jeopardizing the loon protection efforts is a stretch.... The Wind, and the waves it creates have just as much to do that in most cases....

Anyway, what do I know, I spend all summer watching and checking on loon sites with my wife.......

[Dave R]

How big of a wake can a loon possibly make?

[Descant]

Doesn't matter to some how big the wake is, as long as the Loon doesn't exceed 6 MPH. I think they can do that underwater.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

ApS, Maybe you haven't heard but the numbers I heard this year on Loon population show that there are more loons now in NH then there where when efforts were started to protect them. What does that mean? It means that the efforts in place are working in large. While yes there could be and are situations where for a variety of reasons some nest sites are not working out.....Those instances aren't jeopardizing the come back of the loon population. Trying to insinuate that no-wake zone violators are jeopardizing the loon protection efforts is a stretch....
The Wind, and the waves it creates have just as much to do that in most cases....

Anyway, what do I know, I spend all summer watching and checking on loon sites with my wife.......

Naturally strong winds can hit the rocky breakwaters on the Broads side of Wolfeboro Neck, and send spray over the next breakwater. It is probably natural wind-driven erosion that makes the newly-built lots facing the Broads so very steep—even subjecting the owners to DES interventions.

Those areas are not the areas that Loons select for their nests. Loons, like some people, prefer waters away from the rage that Nature uses to "naturally" erode shorelines.

On sunny days—those known for three days of gale force winds—the upper surface of our dock boards (built 1983) never get wet. However, any weekend of over-sized boat wakes will inconsiderately soak our dock—even to a condition of hazardous green and slippery saturation.

[MAXUM]

Build your dock higher off the water, problem solved.

[Blyblvrd]

On rainy days Mother Nature soaks our dock.


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by ApS

On sunny days—those known for three days of gale force winds—the upper surface of our dock boards (built 1983) never get wet. However, any weekend of over-sized boat wakes will inconsiderately soak our dock—even to a condition of hazardous green and slippery saturation.

Wouldn't rain do the same thing? Have you considered scrubbing the slime off with a stiff bristle brush? Seem like it would be less work than trying keep an outdoor dock dry.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Blyblvrd

On rainy days Mother Nature soaks our dock.

Is mother nature oversized too?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Build your dock higher off the water, problem solved.

Wakes increase in height as they approach the shoreline. Most of our "splashed" areas are within eight feet of shore. Because of the professional custom fitting in 1983, the shoreline section would be the most difficult section to raise.

➳ Anyway, it's not just the dock's surface that suffers from oversized wakes. Below the top boards, two cross members have suffered rot, so the opportunity to raise the dock was present this past summer.



(I'll explain how a home owner can replace piling dock cross members—without getting wet —in a later Home, Cottage, or Land Maintenance thread).

Raising wouldn't help, as it's the "rebound-splash" against shoreline boulders that is doing the soaking. I've placed a 2x10 vertically to reduce rebound-splash. It's not enough—as the dock stays wet, even as Lakeport lowers the lake level through the season.

Maybe move the boulders?

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by ApS

Anyway, it's not just the dock's surface that suffers from oversized wakes. Below the top boards, two cross members have suffered rot, so the opportunity to raise the dock was present this past summer.

Are you seriously complaining about the underside of your dock getting wet? #firstworldproblems

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by ApS

Wakes increase in height as they approach the shoreline. Most of our "splashed" areas are within eight feet of shore. Because of the professional custom fitting in 1983, the shoreline section would be the most difficult section to raise.

➳ Anyway, it's not just the dock's surface that suffers from oversized wakes. Below the top boards, two cross members have suffered rot, so the opportunity to raise the dock was present this past summer.



(I'll explain how a home owner can replace piling dock cross members—without getting wet —in a later Home, Cottage, or Land Maintenance thread).

Raising wouldn't help, as it's the "rebound-splash" against shoreline boulders that is doing the soaking. I've placed a 2x10 vertically to reduce rebound-splash. It's not enough—as the dock stays wet, even as Lakeport lowers the lake level through the season.

Maybe move the boulders?

Just remove the dock...... problem SOLVED!

Woodsy

[MAXUM]

First 8-10 feet of my dock gets and stays wet pretty much the entire season from the combination of wind driven waves or wakes on busy weekends. Is what it is, instead of making a royal case of it I just deal with it and have over the course of time incorporated\replaced those areas with materials that can withstand being wet all the time. I do not see why I should impose restrictions on others that wish to enjoy the lake so that I may have a "dry" dock.

You should instead be grateful that you are one of a few fortunate individuals that has a place on the lake to enjoy.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Are you seriously complaining about the underside of your dock getting wet?
#firstworldproblems

Since I have the tools, the inclination, and the time to fix such things, I can't complain about dock repairs.

Interesting that our dock problems increase as the shoreline diminishes in depth; meaning, wake-height increases as wakes approach shore. (As written uncontested earlier).

My complaint? "First-world" boats carrying third-world boating attitudes.

[fatlazyless]

My antique aluminum dock, maybe 65-years old(?), already has many rag-tag repairs throughout, and it got a little crunched again, by an incoming, wind driven, huge ice sheet on Sunday, so maybe its time to replace it?

So, where's to go to window shop one of those fancy-dancy aluminum docks with the removable mahogany deck within?

Middleton Lumber in Meredith has something called a 4x8' cedar/aluminum dock kit - Tommy Docks for 226.95/ea .... ?

One more year, and my olde docke will qualify for its own social security account ...... can an aluminum dock get social security based on its' lack-of-work history?
.........

Hey ApS ..... you ever think about paint'n your old pressure treated dock there with a 20-dollar gallon of grey paint from Walmart ...... could go a long way to shedding all that water, and keep'n it dry?

Grey is the #1 best color for docks ...... beige, brown, dark red ...... nothing comes close to plain medium grey!

[Descant]

HB 188, amending the definition of headway speed. OUGHT TO PASS.
Rep. Patricia Bushway for Resources, Recreation and Development. This bill removes from the definition of
headway speed the reference to 6 miles per hour and establishes headway speed as the slowest speed that a
boat can be operated and maintain the ability to steer. The current definition that specifies 6 miles per hour
is too fast for some watercraft because they still create a wake. For some other craft, the speed may be too
slow to maintain steerage. The committee decision was informed by the input of the Marine Patrol. Vote 19-0.
The "Ought To Pass" Recommendation was adopted today by the whole house on a voice vote.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Descant

HB 188, amending the definition of headway speed. OUGHT TO PASS.
Rep. Patricia Bushway for Resources, Recreation and Development. This bill removes from the definition of
headway speed the reference to 6 miles per hour and establishes headway speed as the slowest speed that a
boat can be operated and maintain the ability to steer. The current definition that specifies 6 miles per hour
is too fast for some watercraft because they still create a wake. For some other craft, the speed may be too
slow to maintain steerage. The committee decision was informed by the input of the Marine Patrol. Vote 19-0.
The "Ought To Pass" Recommendation was adopted today by the whole house on a voice vote.

Anyone that's ever operated a boat going upstream into a stiff current can understand why this is dumb. Against a 5 MPH current, my boat can still steer at -1 MPH SOG. In other words, I can be going 4MPH against the water and be in total control of my boat while moving backwards at -1 MPH relative to the shore. If this passes, anyone that can steer their boat at 5 MPH or less may not legally go upstream into a 5 MPH current. They need to adjust the wording to make it clear that actually making headway is the goal when it comes to headway speed, defining the speed by steering capability alone is dumb dumb dumb...

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Anyone that's ever operated a boat going upstream into a stiff current can understand why this is dumb. Against a 5 MPH current, my boat can still steer at -1 MPH SOG. In other words, I can be going 4MPH against the water and be in total control of my boat while moving backwards at -1 MPH relative to the shore. If this passes, anyone that can steer their boat at 5 MPH or less may not legally go upstream into a 5 MPH current. They need to adjust the wording to make it clear that actually making headway is the goal when it comes to headway speed, defining the speed by steering capability alone is dumb dumb dumb...

You're just being silly and deflective. You do not have headway, steerage, or "total control" (take your pick) if you cannot point your bow 360 degrees.

Let's keep the objections to this bill on stuff that's at least fact-based and tied to the English language. Stuff like--"But I gotta get to Twin Docks before they fill up!" or "I hate going 4 mph through this miserable place!"

[TiltonBB]

I think one of the major problems with legislators making rules for boating is that (I would be willing to bet) most of them have not ever owned or spent any significant time in a boat. Many have never spent even one minute on Winnipesaukee.

They tend to use their life experiences when voting on boating issues and sometimes that results in regulations for boaters that are not quite right.

Some of the problems result when they think things like "We have ..................on Route 93 so we must need it on the lakes".

The lack of information or practical experience on their part sometimes causes changes that are not necessary or regulations that have a negative impact on the people who actually use and enjoy the lake.

[DPatnaude]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Anyone that's ever operated a boat going upstream into a stiff current can understand why this is dumb. Against a 5 MPH current, my boat can still steer at -1 MPH SOG. In other words, I can be going 4MPH against the water and be in total control of my boat while moving backwards at -1 MPH relative to the shore. If this passes, anyone that can steer their boat at 5 MPH or less may not legally go upstream into a 5 MPH current. They need to adjust the wording to make it clear that actually making headway is the goal when it comes to headway speed, defining the speed by steering capability alone is dumb dumb dumb...

If you intend to be going forward and you are actually going backwards, you are not in control of your boat...

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by DPatnaude

If you intend to be going forward and you are actually going backwards, you are not in control of your boat...

Re-read the way the bill is worded, does not mention control at all, just steering.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

You're just being silly and deflective. You do not have headway, steerage, or "total control" (take your pick) if you cannot point your bow 360 degrees.

Re-read the bill, does not mention "total control", only steerage. That said, in my example, I'd be able to point my bow 360 degrees without any difficulty. In one direction, I'd be going -1 MPH SOG, in the other direction I'd be going +9 MPH SOG. Any heading in between would result in a velocity between those two speeds with total control.

I'm not being silly, I'm being realistic. There's a reason "6MPH" is in the law now, this is the reason. IF they want to make a realisticchange, just make it 5 MPH.

[Descant]

The Marine Trades Association used to take legislators out on the lake every year, from the committees that dealt with lake issues. The legislature passed new ethics rules that prevented Reps from accepting anything in excess of a $25 value. It wasn't clear what the value of a boat ride, sandwich and ice cream cone was, so they stopped.

When we were in a kerfuffle about speed limits, a group of legislators borrowed a radar gun and did their own research on speeds and noise. That was discussed, I believe, here, but could have been on one of the speed related websites.
Marine Patrol will probably take out any legislator who asks. (Our local PD will take any adult resident for a ride-along.)

As with anything else, educating somebody does not necessarily mean they will end up agreeing with what you or I think is the obvious.

[DPatnaude]

Steerageway: (of a vessel) the minimum speed required for proper response to the helm.

If you want to go forward and you are going backwards you do not have proper response to the helm.

[BroadHopper]

Did not hear about the group that went out on its own with a radar gun, but I do know Rusty Mclear rented a large pontoon boat and took out legislatures to the Weirs on a weekend in the middle of a poker run. The poker run was slow in front of the Weirs due to traffic and boat waves, someone told the legislatures they were going 100 mph. Since they only saw the weekend traffic in front of the Weirs, they were lead to believe this is normal throughout the whole lake!

Originally Posted by Descant

The Marine Trades Association used to take legislators out on the lake every year, from the committees that dealt with lake issues. The legislature passed new ethics rules that prevented Reps from accepting anything in excess of a $25 value. It wasn't clear what the value of a boat ride, sandwich and ice cream cone was, so they stopped.

When we were in a kerfuffle about speed limits, a group of legislators borrowed a radar gun and did their own research on speeds and noise. That was discussed, I believe, here, but could have been on one of the speed related websites.
Marine Patrol will probably take out any legislator who asks. (Our local PD will take any adult resident for a ride-along.)

As with anything else, educating somebody does not necessarily mean they will end up agreeing with what you or I think is the obvious.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Descant

The Marine Trades Association used to take legislators out on the lake every year, from the committees that dealt with lake issues. The legislature passed new ethics rules that prevented Reps from accepting anything in excess of a $25 value. It wasn't clear what the value of a boat ride, sandwich and ice cream cone was, so they stopped.

When we were in a kerfuffle about speed limits, a group of legislators borrowed a radar gun and did their own research on speeds and noise. That was discussed, I believe, here, but could have been on one of the speed related websites.
Marine Patrol will probably take out any legislator who asks. (Our local PD will take any adult resident for a ride-along.)

As with anything else, educating somebody does not necessarily mean they will end up agreeing with what you or I think is the obvious.

Exactly, we entrust our elected officials to make laws on all sorts of things in which they do not have direct experience. Presumably they are able to access experts to advise them and warn them off of dishonesty. People may not like this, but the "solution" would be a much bigger issue than boat speeds.