Update to Lake Related Legislation

[John Mercier]

I haven't seen the science... so I can't speak to that.

But should we be entering a suggestion in the ear of one of the committee members to amend to all vessels?

It makes it easier to enforce when everyone is using the same rules... and we don't get into the favoritism of one format over another - that as we have seen just leads to industry adaptation to overcome the rule.

[first timer]

SO NEXT will be stop the wind from making waves.. there is a a plan to go atfer bigger boats too because of wakes made by them ,, DO NOT be fooled

[Winni P]

I would like to know what types of boats were tested in the study done in 2022. All wake boats? Any cruisers? Let's be honest, all wakes cause erosion. Big cruisers plowing along (not on plane) create damaging wakes also - what are the results of those tests?

I think our money would be better spent in increasing monies for Marine Patrol/Safety rather that for more legislation that is just a waste of time because nothing is ever enforced.

[Winni P]

Here is a link to the FAQs of the 2022 study in layman's terms:

https://www.lmac.des.nh.gov/sites/g/...-boat-faqs.pdf

Some quotes:

The report indicates the following outcomes:

1. Wake waves produced by wakesurf boats during wakesurfing are measurably larger than non-wakesurf boats in terms of maximum wave height, total wave energy and maximum power.

2. How a boat is used, or its “typical operation,” is an important consideration. Non-wakesurf boats can generate large waves when they plow water during acceleration to or deceleration from planing, but these boats generally spend little time in this condition. Wakesurf boats used for wakesurfing generally spend a majority of time in this condition. Non-wakesurf boats can be outfitted with aftermarket devices, like a wake shaper, to create wake waves suitable for wakesurfing.

3. Data like those produced in this report can be used to inform guidance on operational distance. For example, this study infers, depending on which non-wakesurf boat reference condition is selected, that at 200 feet of operational distance, the wakesurf boats would need to operate at distances greater than 500 feet or 425 feet from shore/structure/object, etc.

4. This study was limited to four boats and the testing period was relatively short. The study’s data and findings are important additions to the growing body of research in the area of wake waves; however, more studies of this type, as well as studies focusing on how waves and propeller wash interact with lake bottoms, shorelines and structures, are needed.

● Did this study examine shoreline erosion or failure of shoreline protection resulting from large boat waves?

No. The study did not investigate these topics; rather, it focused on characterizing the wake waves themselves. The results of this study will support further research focusing on environmental impacts like shorelines.
----------------------------------------------

Has there been any further studies done? It seems ludacris to draft broad legislation based on this study consisting of testing the wakes of 4 boats (2 wakesurfs/2 recreational boats) all 25 ft or less in a 2 month period.

[John Mercier]

We don't actually expend a huge amount on passing legislation - not enough to really change MP funding anyway.

Enforcement, other than funding, is an Executive issue; so not something the Legislature would work on, unless it was related to increasing fines. But if the MP doesn't write the ticket... the change in fine schedules means nothing.

[tis]

Originally Posted by Winni P

I would like to know what types of boats were tested in the study done in 2022. All wake boats? Any cruisers? Let's be honest, all wakes cause erosion. Big cruisers plowing along (not on plane) create damaging wakes also - what are the results of those tests?

I think our money would be better spent in increasing monies for Marine Patrol/Safety rather that for more legislation that is just a waste of time because nothing is ever enforced.

I think the difference is that the wake boats go around and around and around in the same small space. If they went through once, out to a wider area, it would be fine.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by tis

I think the difference is that the wake boats go around and around and around in the same small space. If they went through once, out to a wider area, it would be fine.

Many of us don’t do that. It’s counterproductive to do this. The point is to have long straight runs of flat water that you can create a wake on. Going in circles, running over your wake is a hindrance. It beats the crap out of the surfer and makes it difficult to stay up.

Thats more fun for tubing.

[John Mercier]

The setback doesn't just suggest continuing circling... but a simple pass.
As more lake traffic develops, it isn't a single vessel creating the wakes or the resulting erosion.

The basic scope is that an abutting property owners usage is finite if it damages a neighbors' property.

The runoff - septic or otherwise - into the lake is considered the abutting lakefront owners doing damage to a public property, and thus gets restrictions.
But the public property owners can also do damage to their abutting lakefront neighbors - some restriction are going to occur there.

Personally, I just think creating what would be now three categories - if I am counting correctly - is just adding complexity to the issue.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by tis

I think the difference is that the wake boats go around and around and around in the same small space. If they went through once, out to a wider area, it would be fine.

Great point!

Also, if you look at the map drawn by Lake Winnipesaukee Assoc, you can see that the bill still leaves the vast majority of the lake available. They are doing whatever they can to be reasonable about a sport that a lot of people enjoy. But the wakeboarders need to reasonable about minimizing damage to others

[Woodsy]

Another useless feel good bill! People rail on this forum every year about how others cannot judge 150'... now they are going to add a 500' foot judgement? Seems kinda silly to me! Never mind the pushback coming from the people that sell & own those $250K boats! Good luck with that!

Perhaps better funding of the MP and enforcement of our existing rules would be a better start!


Woodsy

[Major]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Another useless feel good bill!

Unfortunately, useless feel good bills are the result of large governments with nothing better to do but to enact rules and regulations to control the populace. There are so many useless and superfluous rules and regulations, even if we had sufficient numbers of law enforcement they wouldn't be able to effectively enforce the laws.

The issue comes down to common sense and respect, both of which are lacking in today's world. Car manuals from 50 years ago had instructions to rebuild transmissions. Today, those same car manuals provide instructions not to drink the battery acid. That's all you need to know about the world we live.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Another useless feel good bill! People rail on this forum every year about how others cannot judge 150'... now they are going to add a 500' foot judgement? Seems kinda silly to me! Never mind the pushback coming from the people that sell & own those $250K boats! Good luck with that!

Perhaps better funding of the MP and enforcement of our existing rules would be a better start!
Woodsy

It will be easy to enforce in the sense that the sport will effectively be eliminated from many bays and small lakes. Since wake surfers like calm waters, as they get pushed into areas where there is no protection from winds, there will be fewer and fewer days suitable for the sport.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Another useless feel good bill! People rail on this forum every year about how others cannot judge 150'... now they are going to add a 500' foot judgement? Seems kinda silly to me! Never mind the pushback coming from the people that sell & own those $250K boats! Good luck with that!

Perhaps better funding of the MP and enforcement of our existing rules would be a better start!


Woodsy

So the smaller PWC/Skicraft will have a 300' setback, but a larger boat will not?
And how do you propose that we structure the boat registrations to cover a higher cost MP enforcement funding?

Serious questions - not being rude - but we need a basis for the idea/thought.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

So the smaller PWC/Skicraft will have a 300' setback, but a larger boat will not?
And how do you propose that we structure the boat registrations to cover a higher cost MP enforcement funding?

Serious questions - not being rude - but we need a basis for the idea/thought.

I agree with your desire for a standard. Things have been standardized for years at 150' for all vessels. The "ski craft" rule was old and obsolete, it didn't really apply as almost all newer machines don't meet that criteria. I think all should have the same standard, be it 150', 200' or whatever truly makes sense.

With the new proposals in play why should a pwc have a 300' setback, a surf boat actively surfing have a 500' setback, and a 38' Carver (or even a 56' Galeon) be allowed to plow along at a 150' setback? Its not hard to determine which is the least and which is the most detrimental to the lake in this example.

As far as funding is concerned, something needs to be done to solve the problem. There is hardly any enforcement, if there was we wouldn't even be having these discussions. How much would they really need to raise the cost of registrations to add extra seasonal patrol officers on the few large bodies of water where the problems lie? I saw a statistic for 2022 that NH had 105k boat registrations. How about a charge for paddle sports as well?

[Descant]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I agree with your desire for a standard. Things have been standardized for years at 150' for all vessels. The "ski craft" rule was old and obsolete, it didn't really apply as almost all newer machines don't meet that criteria. I think all should have the same standard, be it 150', 200' or whatever truly makes sense.

With the new proposals in play why should a pwc have a 300' setback, a surf boat actively surfing have a 500' setback, and a 38' Carver (or even a 56' Galeon) be allowed to plow along at a 150' setback? Its not hard to determine which is the least and which is the most detrimental to the lake in this example.

As far as funding is concerned, something needs to be done to solve the problem. There is hardly any enforcement, if there was we wouldn't even be having these discussions. How much would they really need to raise the cost of registrations to add extra seasonal patrol officers on the few large bodies of water where the problems lie? I saw a statistic for 2022 that NH had 105k boat registrations. How about a charge for paddle sports as well?

As noted earlier, the cruisers tend to go by once, not repeating in circles. While big cruisers ared noticeable, I see most of trhem nevert leave the dock, or they leave the marina and anchor in front of the beach at Silver Sands.
The budget at MP ("Navigation Safety Fund") isn't the entire problem. Ever since they rolled MP into state police to get federal Homeland Security money for the coast, the requirements to be an MP officer have required more training and it is harder to find people who can train from February to April and qualify.
I am confident the Resources Committee will sort things out. I think they've done well by us in the past.

YES, to me, Kayaks etc should pay a fee. Every time one of them gets into a foolish act of bravado, Fish and Game and MP have to go to the rescue, body retrieval, etc. At the very least, they should be treated like hikers and be responsible for costs, or buy a voluntary "Hike Safe" card. Major issue when a kayak blows off the dock. When it is found, nobody knows who it belongs to or if a person fell overboard, but there is still a search party. Camps and others who ow n many craft should qualify for "fleet rate", noting that youth campers don't go out unsupervised.

[ITD]

My observation of large boats is that they go from one spot to another, anchor for the day, then go from that spot back to their home. My observation of wake boats is they come out, make many, many passes, stop for a while, letting others make many, many passes. All day long. The effect on the shore line is dramatic and non stop when the weather is good. The water is more silty and turbid from these boats. I am absolutely for this rule, I don’t think it goes far enough.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I agree with your desire for a standard. Things have been standardized for years at 150' for all vessels. The "ski craft" rule was old and obsolete, it didn't really apply as almost all newer machines don't meet that criteria. I think all should have the same standard, be it 150', 200' or whatever truly makes sense.

With the new proposals in play why should a pwc have a 300' setback, a surf boat actively surfing have a 500' setback, and a 38' Carver (or even a 56' Galeon) be allowed to plow along at a 150' setback? Its not hard to determine which is the least and which is the most detrimental to the lake in this example.

As far as funding is concerned, something needs to be done to solve the problem. There is hardly any enforcement, if there was we wouldn't even be having these discussions. How much would they really need to raise the cost of registrations to add extra seasonal patrol officers on the few large bodies of water where the problems lie? I saw a statistic for 2022 that NH had 105k boat registrations. How about a charge for paddle sports as well?

As noted earlier, the cruisers tend to go by once, not repeating in circles. While big cruisers are noticeable, I see most of them never leave the dock, or they leave the marina and anchor in front of the beach at Silver Sands.
The budget at MP ("Navigation Safety Fund") isn't the entire problem. Ever since they rolled MP into state police to get federal Homeland Security money for the coast, the requirements to be an MP officer have required more training and it is harder to find people who can train from February to April and qualify.
I am confident the Resources Committee will sort things out. I think they've done well by us in the past.

YES, to me, kayaks etc should pay a fee. Every time one of them gets into a foolish act of bravado, Fish and Game and MP have to go to the rescue, body retrieval, etc. At the very least, they should be treated like hikers and be responsible for costs, or buy a voluntary "Hike Safe" card. Major issue when a kayak blows off the dock. When it is found, nobody knows who it belongs to or if a person fell overboard, but there is still a search party. Camps and others who own many craft should qualify for "fleet rate", noting that youth campers don't go out unsupervised.

[The Real BigGuy]

If we have a standard 300 or 500 ft set back we might, in reality, get 150 ft in actuality. Just saying!


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Descant

As noted earlier, the cruisers tend to go by once, not repeating in circles. While big cruisers are noticeable, I see most of them never leave the dock, or they leave the marina and anchor in front of the beach at Silver Sands.
The budget at MP ("Navigation Safety Fund") isn't the entire problem. Ever since they rolled MP into state police to get federal Homeland Security money for the coast, the requirements to be an MP officer have required more training and it is harder to find people who can train from February to April and qualify.
I am confident the Resources Committee will sort things out. I think they've done well by us in the past.

YES, to me, kayaks etc should pay a fee. Every time one of them gets into a foolish act of bravado, Fish and Game and MP have to go to the rescue, body retrieval, etc. At the very least, they should be treated like hikers and be responsible for costs, or buy a voluntary "Hike Safe" card. Major issue when a kayak blows off the dock. When it is found, nobody knows who it belongs to or if a person fell overboard, but there is still a search party. Camps and others who own many craft should qualify for "fleet rate", noting that youth campers don't go out unsupervised.

Kayakers are part of HikeSafe. They would probably support moving to a boat registration format; but that may actually lower the amount of money moving toward SAR - as 100% of the HikeSafe goes to SAR and only $1 of a boat registration.

It would be a required purchase rather than a voluntary; but I don't what the ratio would be.

[codeman671]

The same basic wake-surf bill is being proposed in Michigan.

[John Mercier]

I think each plays off the other...
But I would really love to see the effects of the proposal on bodies that are not Winnipesaukee.

[Lake Winnipesaukee Alliance]

Vermont is doing the same. The VT Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules is set to vote later this month.

https://vtdigger.org/2024/02/02/fina...ke-boat-rules/

[fatlazyless]

March 6, 2023: Vermont wake boat restrictions ...... http://www.wcax.com/2024/03/06/vt-wa...n-this-summer/ ..... are expected to begin this summer.

Hey there Vermont wake-boaters, come to Lake Winnipesaukee! For $25 you can launch and later on, remove your expensive wake boat at the very well designed Center Harbor NH town boat ramp, boat launch ramp attendant usually present, and then park it up the hill in the unpaved parking area behind the nearby NH State liquor store.

Or better yet, stay overnight at the very nearby ...... www.centerharborinn.com/winnipesaukee-webcam/ and park you trailer vehicle and trailer at the inn in their trailer vehicle area.

Go wake boarding all around that smooth serene Center Harbor Bay and come enjoy the Live Free or Die, wakeboarders welcome, wakeboard State of New Hampshire.

[codeman671]

Any updates from today’s hearings?

[Flotnjr]

HB1562 regarding the 'ski craft' to be inclusive of all personal watercraft looks to be almost dead. One person showed in support of the bill, well over 20 in opposition.
HB1390 about the 500' setback I heard was equally argued across the board. We will see with that one.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Flotnjr

HB1562 regarding the 'ski craft' to be inclusive of all personal watercraft looks to be almost dead. One person showed in support of the bill, well over 20 in opposition.
HB1390 about the 500' setback I heard was equally argued across the board. We will see with that one.

That's good about HB1562. I heard that at one point the online submissions were 20 in support and over 400 in oppositions.

I think HB1390 is going to be tight.

[Lake Winnipesaukee Alliance]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Any updates from today’s hearings?

About 150 people attended the 4 hour hearing, with testimony evenly divided for and against the bill. Online testimony showed 1140 in support, 1725 opposed, and 2 neutral. The committee will discuss and make a recommendation on HB 1390 on Wednesday March 13.

[Rich]

Regarding HB-1562, yesterday I received this

Great News!

I just heard, with good authority, that HB-1562 is dead! Supposedly a unanimous vote by the committee.

😎👍👍👍👍

[Lake Winnipesaukee Alliance]

HB 1301, relative to wakesurfing on public bodies of water

This bill proposes that any group of 25 residents or property owners will be able to petition the department of safety (DOS) to restrict or prohibit wake surfing on a public water body, or a portion thereof, pursuant to a petition and hearing process.

*Note that this does not mean 25 people can restrict an area just by petition. The petition goes to DOS and through the formal hearing process*

Status
Public Hearing: 01/10/2024
Executive Session: 03/13/2024
Committee Report: Without Recommendation 03/13/2024 (Vote 10-10)

The first vote in committee was to ITL this bill, stating concerns about waterbodies being in public trust, and the available resources of DOS. After more discussion, the motion of ITL failed (10-10)

*Note that in order for a bill to pass to the full house with a recommendation from the committee (OTP, ITL, Refer to Interim Study, or OTP with amendment) there cannot be a tie*

After the ITL failed there was a motion OTP with amendment, that failed (10-10). Lastly, a motion of OTP as originally written failed (10-10). This bill now goes to the full house with no recommendation from the committee.

ITL= "Kill the Bill"
OTP= Ought to Pass

[Lake Winnipesaukee Alliance]

NH House Voting on 2 Wakesurfing bills on Thursday, March 28.

Thank you to everyone who has responded to our previous calls to action regarding two wakesurfing bills - HB1301 and HB1390. We need you once again to contact your representatives!

This Thursday, the two bills go before the full House of Representatives to determine if they move on to the Senate. There is strong opposition to both bills. However, the Resources, Recreation, and Development Committee acknowledges that there is also a strong desire to do something about the negative impacts that wakesurfing can have on our lake's water quality.

HB1301, relative to wakesurfing on public bodies of water, would allow 25 residents or more to petition the NH Department of Safety to prohibit or restrict certain activities on a body of water, or portion thereof. This is the process followed for establishing no wake zones, no jet skiing areas, no rafting zones, etc., and would allow the same process to be followed regarding restricting wake surfing. It does not mean that 25 people can decide to have wakesurfing banned or restricted on a waterbody. The NH Department of Safety would have to go through the public hearing process to determine whether the petition/request is valid and needed. This past week, the Department of Safety confirmed that this bill would not place a burden on other safety hearings or staff.

HB1390, relative to regulating wakeboating and wakesports, was amended by the Resources, Recreation, and Development Committee to establish a wakesports zone as an area of a waterbody that has a minimum of 50 contiguous acres that are 300 feet (previously 500 feet) from shore on all sides. The amended bill removes the 20 ft. minimum depth requirement as well.Here is a link to a 300 ft buffer interactive map for Winni.

https://lakewinnipesauke.maps.arcgis...0f881b8228e18c


LWA supports both of these bills, and we urge you to contact the full House and express your support as well. Your input matters and helps the NH legislators make informed decisions.

HOW TO CONTACT YOUR HOUSE REPRESENTATIVES

Follow the simple steps below to let the House Representatives in your district know why they should support these bills.

Go to the NH General Court website at: https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/

On the right-hand side, under “Discover a Town or City’s Representative,” select your town in the pulldown menu or click on your region on the map.

The first thing that will appear is the list of Representatives in your town. (Do not scroll down to the State Senator section below. Only the House Representatives will be discussing these bills this week.)

Under the Representative’s section, click on the name of each representative. Their email and/or phone number should pop up. Email or call your representatives. (Calling can really make a BIG impact!)

In your email or phone call, be sure to:

Identify the bills you would like your representative to support on March 28. (Consider an email subject line such as: SUPPORT HB 1301 & 1390 relative to wakesports on March 28)

Identify that you are a constituent from their district. (It’s ok if you don’t permanently live in the district–if you spend part of the year or vacation there, they want to hear from you!)

Tell your brief personal story about why they should support these bills.
Let them know how to reach you if they have questions or would like to learn more.

Please share this with others who may be interested. We appreciate your time, input, and support!

[Blyblvrd]

Please do your research and make your own decision. The majority of people in attendance and online opposed HB1390 when presented to the house by the committee. And HB1301 removes regulations from our current systems and empowers a group of 25 residents to convince the Department of Safety to create new enforceable restrictions and laws.

I am a contributing supporter of LWA and care about Winni remaining blue. Both these bills are bad for our lakes. Please oppose them.


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Major]

Originally Posted by Blyblvrd

Please do your research and make your own decision. The majority of people in attendance and online opposed HB1390 when presented to the house by the committee. And HB1301 removes regulations from our current systems and empowers a group of 25 residents to convince the Department of Safety to create new enforceable restrictions and laws.

I am a contributing supporter of LWA and care about Winni remaining blue. Both these bills are bad for our lakes. Please oppose them.


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Just so I’m clear. I own a 3-person PWC (2021 SeaDoo). If I want to continue my unfettered right to use my PWC anywhere on Lake Winnipesaukee, I vote AGAINST the bill, right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Major

Just so I’m clear. I own a 3-person PWC (2021 SeaDoo). If I want to continue my unfettered right to use my PWC anywhere on Lake Winnipesaukee, I vote AGAINST the bill, right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hmm, where does it say it affects pwcs? What I read is just ballasted wake boats.

[Major]

Sorry, I thought one bill concerned PWC. Are there two separate bills for wake boats? If so, sorry for the confusion.

That said, I’m guessing the PWC bill is dead.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Major

Sorry, I thought one bill concerned PWC. Are there two separate bills for wake boats? If so, sorry for the confusion.

That said, I’m guessing the PWC bill is dead.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No problem Major, just thought I might have missed something. Hopefully someone else will answer your question.

[John Mercier]

HB1562 is through committee with an ITL (20-0, consent calendar).

Everyone should be able to find these.

[Descant]

For me, allowing a petition to set up NWZ, NRZ etc has been abused and the whole process should be scrapped, so I'd vote "NO". The limitation of 300', 50 acres, etc. is certainly a compromise. Nobody leaves the room happy. That's not the best way to make laws, but I guess that's the way we've always done it. I'd like to wait a year and see what the success is in other states who are passing wake boat laws right now. Table it or send it to interim study.

[John Mercier]

We shouldn't really be legislating based on other States.

If HB1562 were to by some miracle pass at the 300' mark... then I could see them moving all the boats including the wake boats to that mark.

But right now... its more like a game of picking winners and losers.
And we shouldn't be doing that.

[Lake Winnipesaukee Alliance]

Originally Posted by Major

Sorry, I thought one bill concerned PWC. Are there two separate bills for wake boats? If so, sorry for the confusion.

That said, I’m guessing the PWC bill is dead.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, there are two seperate wakesurfing bills. SB 431 and HB1390 . There was also a seperate PWC bill, HB1562, and that was voted ITL in committee.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

We shouldn't really be legislating based on other States.....

What happens in other states is very important. When a rep drafts a bill, one of the first steps is for legislative services to research other states as well as past bills submitted in NH. On many subjects there is "Model legislation" that is followed across the country. For example, NY state is frequently the guiding state for insurance regulation. Legislative services may also find that similar law was knocked down by courts someplace. When a bill is heard in committee in a public hearing, experience in other states comes up as major testimony.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Blyblvrd

Please do your research and make your own decision. The majority of people in attendance and online opposed HB1390 when presented to the house by the committee. And HB1301 removes regulations from our current systems and empowers a group of 25 residents to convince the Department of Safety to create new enforceable restrictions and laws.

I am a contributing supporter of LWA and care about Winni remaining blue. Both these bills are bad for our lakes. Please oppose them.


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Absolutely, and well said! HB1301 is clear overreach.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

We shouldn't really be legislating based on other States.

If HB1562 were to by some miracle pass at the 300' mark... then I could see them moving all the boats including the wake boats to that mark.

But right now... its more like a game of picking winners and losers.
And we shouldn't be doing that.

I feel that 500' is ridiculous, and don't love 300' but could settle for it. I feel that its unfair to single out and punish surf boats, yet huge cruisers can pound the shores and docks with huge waves at 150'.

I don't see them going to 300' for everyone.

[Blyblvrd]

Imagine driving around in a boat with a 300’ restriction pulling someone behind performing water sports. Then a boat with a 150’ restriction legally comes within 300’ of you, say 280’.

It’s now upon you to quickly slow your boat to headway speed, dropping your rider, while you wait for the other boat to travel outside 300’ again.

150’ is not being enforced today. This rule will only cause additional complexity and confusion for everyone including under resourced Marine Patrol.


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Blyblvrd]

Originally Posted by Descant

What happens in other states is very important. When a rep drafts a bill, one of the first steps is for legislative services to research other states as well as past bills submitted in NH. On many subjects there is "Model legislation" that is followed across the country. For example, NY state is frequently the guiding state for insurance regulation. Legislative services may also find that similar law was knocked down by courts someplace. When a bill is heard in committee in a public hearing, experience in other states comes up as major testimony.

I’d be worried if we started modeling our laws after NY or California for example. Good to be informed by other legislation but lets not assume that just because another state passed a law its what’s best for NH.

Why not follow Minnesota which has far more lakes than NH and no 150’ law at all unless it’s an emergency vessel with its emergency lights on…


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Blyblvrd]

Correction. Minnesota does have a 150’ law for PWC’s and I love that every boater is responsible for their own wake:

Under Minnesota law, the damage your wake causes is treated the same as damage caused by an actual collision. Personal watercraft (PWC) must stay at least 150 feet from shore. There is no required distance for boats, but by staying at least 200 feet from shore or other structures boaters can reduce the likelihood their wakes will cause damage. Boats that create an artificial wake may require more distance to lower the impact.


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[WinnisquamZ]

Originally Posted by Blyblvrd

Correction. Minnesota does have a 150’ law for PWC’s and I love that every boater is responsible for their own wake:

Under Minnesota law, the damage your wake causes is treated the same as damage caused by an actual collision. Personal watercraft (PWC) must stay at least 150 feet from shore. There is no required distance for boats, but by staying at least 200 feet from shore or other structures boaters can reduce the likelihood their wakes will cause damage. Boats that create an artificial wake may require more distance to lower the impact.


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Also remember Minnesota allow lakefront property owners more opportunities to repair and resolve erosion issues when then arise.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Blyblvrd

Imagine driving around in a boat with a 300’ restriction pulling someone behind performing water sports. Then a boat with a 150’ restriction legally comes within 300’ of you, say 280’.

It’s now upon you to quickly slow your boat to headway speed, dropping your rider, while you wait for the other boat to travel outside 300’ again.

150’ is not being enforced today. This rule will only cause additional complexity and confusion for everyone including under resourced Marine Patrol.


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

I think you are mistaking Safe Passage for the Shoreline Rule.

What they are discussing is just the shoreline.

[Blyblvrd]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

I think you are mistaking Safe Passage for the Shoreline Rule.

What they are discussing is just the shoreline.

Good catch. Thanks for the clarification.


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[John Mercier]

I've operated with the 300' rule using a WaveRunner, and it did not impact my enjoyment of Opechee... which is a much smaller lake.

In fact, I don't think 500' would have either.

But at that time, there was no ''science'' for the 300' rule. It was just that some people didn't like the small inexpensive agile crafts.

[Blyblvrd]

But it might if the 300’ shoreline rule eliminated many areas where you could use it resulting in a concentration of many WaveRunners in fewer areas.


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Major]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

I've operated with the 300' rule using a WaveRunner, and it did not impact my enjoyment of Opechee... which is a much smaller lake.

In fact, I don't think 500' would have either.

But at that time, there was no ''science'' for the 300' rule. It was just that some people didn't like the small inexpensive agile crafts.

John, the lack of "science" haven't stopped our legislature from enacting useless laws. One need only refer to the speed limit law. There was no science behind the law in the first place. Speed was not and never has been a safety issue. The data did not support it. Yet, it satisfied those who wanted to eliminate go fast, loud powerboats from the lake. I'm happy to say that it didn't work. As we all know, there is no shortage of fast powerboats on the lake. The marine patrol doesn't enforce the speed limit, so I suspect it will likewise not enforce the 500' rule, if imposed.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Major

John, the lack of "science" haven't stopped our legislature from enacting useless laws. One need only refer to the speed limit law. There was no science behind the law in the first place. Speed was not and never has been a safety issue. The data did not support it. Yet, it satisfied those who wanted to eliminate go fast, loud powerboats from the lake. I'm happy to say that it didn't work. As we all know, there is no shortage of fast powerboats on the lake. The marine patrol doesn't enforce the speed limit, so I suspect it will likewise not enforce the 500' rule, if imposed.

Gotta be careful Major, they actually do enforce the speed limit, I've seen them many times with their radar gun or laser gun pointed at my jet ski. They just can't be everywhere all the time.

[John Mercier]

High speed we use the middle of that lake...
If we came together it was at low speeds within the headway rule.

Usually about a dozen or more of us.

The only problem that I ever saw back then was high speed near each other.
My Waverunner got T'ed by another PWC that went right over the top of it.
I was lucky enough to be paying attention, and simply jumped off and submerged.

I've never operated a vessel with a speedometer on it...
But I did have to sit in on the discussion as it came up in SB5.
Lots of back and forth about congestion on Winnipesaukee. So I didn't really pay much attention.

[Major]

Originally Posted by ITD

Gotta be careful Major, they actually do enforce the speed limit, I've seen them many times with their radar gun or laser gun pointed at my jet ski. They just can't be everywhere all the time.

They don't appear to enforce it on Paugus Bay. It would be interesting to know how many speeding tickets marine patrol issued since the implementation of the speed limit. I am sure it is very low, because if it weren't, we'd all know about it.

I've never seen a radar gun used on the lake, but I wasn't looking for one. My boat does 43 mph max and my SeaDoo does about 50 or so mph max, so I'm not too concerned about it.

It is not unusual to see boats going very fast on Paugus Bay on a Sunday afternoon returning to Lakeport. It's a beautiful sight to see.

[Descant]

LWA started a good thread on legislation. Let's not get it shut down by turning it into another speed limit discussion.

[Major]

Originally Posted by Descant

LWA started a good thread on legislation. Let's not get it shut down by turning it into another speed limit discussion.

The point of my comment is that the legislature makes feel good laws without understanding the problem. Is lake erosion now quantifiably greater than it was 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago? Is it really a problem? I am sure the OP knows a lot about this problem and can share the "science." Or is it excessive development on the shoreline without protective measures preventing biodegradable material from entering the lake.

Instead, I suspect the real problem or issue is that people just don't like wake boats (as they did not like go fast, loud powerboats). Since they don't like wake boats, they enact legislation to limit the fun of having a wake boat. Seems pretty simple to me. As stated by someone in this thread, does it make any sense to limit the use of a "wake boat" when someone can take a 45' Sea Ray and blast the shoreline from 150'? Of course not.

[John Mercier]

I think the LWA position is to seek balance between the abutters (lake and lakefront).
I don't know if it would be fair to place all the cost on the side of the lakefront owners for degradation of the lake.

But even people that want less restrictions seem to have a threshold of freedom; they weren't all out supportive of the overnight mooring bill.
And that had some basic issues, but not half the items that public testimony kept bringing up.

[Fishcat]

It doesn't seem possible to stop boats that churn up the bottom of the shallows, boats that run at excessive speeds, or other boats that are being operated inappropriately due to the massive amounts of money used to lobby for them. Maybe it is time to raise the registration fees on boats that have a negative impact on the health of the lake. This money could be used to increase the Marine Patrol patrols and programs that contribute to positive lake health. The shore owners already contribute through taxes but many boat owners do not carry the same financial burden.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by Fishcat

It doesn't seem possible to stop boats that churn up the bottom of the shallows, boats that run at excessive speeds, or other boats that are being operated inappropriately due to the massive amounts of money used to lobby for them. Maybe it is time to raise the registration fees on boats that have a negative impact on the health of the lake. This money could be used to increase the Marine Patrol patrols and programs that contribute to positive lake health. The shore owners already contribute through taxes but many boat owners do not carry the same financial burden.

Larger boats already pay more, both in registration fee and boat fee. I have one with a fee of $124 and one with $250. The state gats the registration fee which gets split up for Search & Rescue, Milfoil, Navigation safety fund (MP) etc. The boat fee goes to wherever you register. There would be huge pushback from towns if you take that away. A few years ago the legislature raised car registration fees. Huge outcry; the party in the majority lost their majority and the fee was reduced the next year. Raising taxes and fees in NH is not easy.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Fishcat

It doesn't seem possible to stop boats that churn up the bottom of the shallows, boats that run at excessive speeds, or other boats that are being operated inappropriately due to the massive amounts of money used to lobby for them. Maybe it is time to raise the registration fees on boats that have a negative impact on the health of the lake. This money could be used to increase the Marine Patrol patrols and programs that contribute to positive lake health. The shore owners already contribute through taxes but many boat owners do not carry the same financial burden.

It wouldn't be balanced to punish every user for the behavior of some...

We could question where the ticket money for the MP goes?
If it goes to support the MP budget, maybe they will write more tickets?

[codeman671]

Update from Silver Sands, who has been instrumental in the fight against these bills:

"Both HB 1301 and HB 1390 were Tabled by the House. This effectively means that they will NOT move forward this year, removing any bills from the table will require a 2/3 House majority after yesterday."

[Descant]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Update from Silver Sands, who has been instrumental in the fight against these bills:

"Both HB 1301 and HB 1390 were Tabled by the House. This effectively means that they will NOT move forward this year, removing any bills from the table will require a 2/3 House majority after yesterday."

Commonly known as "Death with Dignity". Votes were 190-172 and 190-178. This should be a good indicator of the outcome on any bills that might come from the Senate.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Update from Silver Sands, who has been instrumental in the fight against these bills:

"Both HB 1301 and HB 1390 were Tabled by the House. This effectively means that they will NOT move forward this year, removing any bills from the table will require a 2/3 House majority after yesterday."

They wouldn't remove them from the table; because next year is a new session.

[fatlazyless]

Opinion: Why regular folks should care about wake sport legislation ..... http://www.concordmonitor.com/My-Tur...ation-54528650 ..... March 27, 2024 ...... Concord Monitor ...... from the director of the Lake Sunapee Protective Association ...... Elizabeth Harper

It talks about $300,0000 wake boats and shoreline erosion, degradation of fish habitat, uprooting of aquatic plants, reduction of water quality, churning of sediment, and release of phosphorus which can lead to toxic cyanobacteria blooms.

[fatlazyless]

www.wakethelakenh.com happens in about six weeks , Fri-Sat-Sun, May 17-18-19, at Weirs Beach NH. This year, 2024 will be the third annual outdoor block party and this year it will have live bands on three stages, all weekend.

So, what does this have to do with wake boarding on Lake Winnipesaukee? Well, the name is 'Wake the Lake, New Hampshire' which sends a strong message. Instead of using the word 'Wake', it could have been Rock the Lake or Party the Lake, but it is Wake the Lake which uses the word 'Wake' as a verb and it takes place at Weirs Beach, Laconia on beautiful Lake Winnipesaukee.

Does that send a message that Lake Winnipesaukee is the place to go for wake boarding, or what, with the phrase 'Wake the Lake-NH'.

[Fishcat]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Opinion: Why regular folks should care about wake sport legislation ..... http://www.concordmonitor.com/My-Tur...ation-54528650 ..... March 27, 2024 ...... Concord Monitor ...... from the director of the Lake Sunapee Protective Association ...... Elizabeth Harper

It talks about $300,0000 wake boats and shoreline erosion, degradation of fish habitat, uprooting of aquatic plants, reduction of water quality, churning of sediment, and release of phosphorus which can lead to toxic cyanobacteria blooms.

Many of these boats are trailered in for the day and the owners do not have any stake in lake quality, shore erosion and the spreading of aquatic invasive species. Unfortunately, many people who do not have a stake in protecting the lake do not have the level of caring needed to keep the lake a safe environment. In this case, money talks. If the boats cost $300,000, we are not talking about people without financial resources. Someone must be creative enough to find a way to make the boat owners also stake holders in the lake quality.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

www.wakethelakenh.com happens in about six weeks , Fri-Sat-Sun, May 17-18-19, at Weirs Beach NH. This year, 2024 will be the third annual outdoor block party and this year it will have live bands on three stages, all weekend.

So, what does this have to do with wake boarding on Lake Winnipesaukee? Well, the name is 'Wake the Lake, New Hampshire' which sends a strong message. Instead of using the word 'Wake', it could have been Rock the Lake or Party the Lake, but it is Wake the Lake which uses the word 'Wake' as a verb and it takes place at Weirs Beach, Laconia on beautiful Lake Winnipesaukee.

Does that send a message that Lake Winnipesaukee is the place to go for wake boarding, or what, with the phrase 'Wake the Lake-NH'.

Or maybe it has absolutely nothing to do with wakesports, and is about waking the lakes region up from a long crappy winter, and getting people back in the mode for summer?

[John Mercier]

The City of Laconia has a large stake in the lake; and the businesses that support these events have a large stake also.

They get the future they make.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Or maybe it has absolutely nothing to do with wakesports, and is about waking the lakes region up from a long crappy winter, and getting people back in the mode for summer?

I agree, IMHO it's "wake" as in wake up from a long winter's nap!

[John Mercier]

More than likely it is because it rhymes with LAKE.

If if was BAKE the LAKE, you would get a whole different crowd. It would still work for Laconia's party persona.

Laconia, and particularly the Weirs, only have the party atmosphere to fall back on. They haven't really been able to develop another persona.

They tried to build a new manufacturing base under the Straight Arrows... but not one of them had any real knowledge of manufacturing or the issues around it.

They tried to rebuild agricultural... but I believe that turned into cultural... and has gone away. Again, no one on the Council currently understands agriculture.

So it is easier just to fall back on the party.

[Descant]

I rem ember "urban renewal" in the 60's and 70's, not just in Laconia. But there really wasn't much vision. Relying on a few weeks of tourism doesn't build an economy with year round jobs. Yes, we need workforce housing, but that doesn't bring in growth type jobs or businesses. Urban renewal in Laconia upgraded the downtown, but the growth went to the Belknap Mall. Tilton and in the other direction, McIntyre Circle. If you're going for the "party" plan start with a huge convention center that can function year round. Something easily convertible to a casino. The State School would be ideal, but make it 100% commercial and forget about mixed use. Golf, perhaps. People that vote for networks of hiking trails don't spend money.

[John Mercier]

Actually the City will not be investing in workforce housing... it is asking private investors to do that. And no trails were part of the original plan, they lead to questionable access... which is why the SD/LB residents are opposed to the WOW. The inclusion of them was partially to blame for the loss of funding support.

The manufacturing issue, at the time, was thought to be access to the highway (thus the location next to the bypass) and having utilities present on-site.
After the sale of Hadco to Sanmina, it was discovered that NH didn't have the best business energy or taxation situation. Sanmina opted to shut the NH locations and keep the one in NY.

The ''NH Advantage'' was at time when we coaxed manufacturers from MA into NH. We hadn't really paid much attention to other Northeast States, and to be truthful didn't think much outside of New England.

The downtown situation is unique; possibly along business lines.
I used to purchase my Carhartt and boots from Bootleggers... which create questions about support for Osborne's in my own town - though I don't even know if they carry Carhartt any more; and my jeans from Walmart. But Tractor Supply in Gilford is now carrying my Wranglers (not that flex skinny jean stuff) Carhartt, and Timberland. And with the bypass, it isn't that much further to hit Gilford.

My dress shoes will probably be the ones that I buried or cremated in... as they are well taken care of and not likely to need repair with the amount of usage they get. So I haven't been to Bootleggers in a while; and probably will not ever again.

Not that every consumer has the same pattern... but our new POS systems are supplying much more data on consumption patterns and individual consumers than anyone ever thought possible.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

More than likely it is because it rhymes with LAKE.

If if was BAKE the LAKE, you would get a whole different crowd. It would still work for Laconia's party persona.

Laconia, and particularly the Weirs, only have the party atmosphere to fall back on. They haven't really been able to develop another persona.

They tried to build a new manufacturing base under the Straight Arrows... but not one of them had any real knowledge of manufacturing or the issues around it.

They tried to rebuild agricultural... but I believe that turned into cultural... and has gone away. Again, no one on the Council currently understands agriculture.

So it is easier just to fall back on the party.

Tower Hill Tavern is having a “bake the lake” on 4/20…it’s on their fb page.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Fishcat

Many of these boats are trailered in for the day and the owners do not have any stake in lake quality, shore erosion and the spreading of aquatic invasive species. Unfortunately, many people who do not have a stake in protecting the lake do not have the level of caring needed to keep the lake a safe environment. In this case, money talks. If the boats cost $300,000, we are not talking about people without financial resources. Someone must be creative enough to find a way to make the boat owners also stake holders in the lake quality.

I found this post interesting, that many wake boats are trailered... This is misguided assumption.... In my purview of the lake, None of the wake boats I see are trailered. They are actually all shore front owners in the area. There are about 5 such boats I see out more then then others and all but 1 of those Five, I know where the boats dock. Beyond that if you take ride around the shore of any part of the lake you will see the popularity of this boats has increased, and they are represent all over the lake.

[fatlazyless]

Wake boats move relatively slowly through the lake water at a speed of maybe 20-mph, just enough for it to be up on plane. They have the ability to make a big curling wake in the water so a skilled person on either a wakeboard, surf board or stand up paddle board can use the wake to follow along, behind the boat without the use of a tow line. The curl of the wave and their ..... www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXF9vTPQw0Y ......balance skill propels them along, over the water, and behind the boat.

[tis]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

I found this post interesting, that many wake boats are trailered... This is misguided assumption.... In my purview of the lake, None of the wake boats I see are trailered. They are actually all shore front owners in the area. There are about 5 such boats I see out more then then others and all but 1 of those Five, I know where the boats dock. Beyond that if you take ride around the shore of any part of the lake you will see the popularity of this boats has increased, and they are represent all over the lake.

I don't know about many but I know one of our neighbors trailers his.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by tis

I don't know about many but I know one of our neighbors trailers his.

I am not indicating that there aren't some that are trailered..... But the idea that there would be a majority of them being trailered is not realistic. At the end of the day, wake surfing has become the next big thing.... The wake boats aren't going anywhere and people need to come to grips with that.

Now that doesn't mean that they should have the run of the lake either. Learning about wake damage, and how to prevent it is education information that has to be out there, so that people understand that doing it close to shore is a problem...

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

I am not indicating that there aren't some that are trailered..... But the idea that there would be a majority of them being trailered is not realistic. At the end of the day, wake surfing has become the next big thing.... The wake boats aren't going anywhere and people need to come to grips with that.

Now that doesn't mean that they should have the run of the lake either. Learning about wake damage, and how to prevent it is education information that has to be out there, so that people understand that doing it close to shore is a problem...

What about sound damage? Blasting Junior's music loaded with "F" bombs through tower mounted speakers across the lake. How do we get rid of that? Can't we get Junior a waterproof headset so only he can enjoy the "Music"?

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Tower Hill Tavern is having a “bake the lake” on 4/20…it’s on their fb page.

Somehow I saw that coming...

Next thing will be ''Take the Lake'' with one big meth movement.
The Parade will start in downtown Laconia and move briskly up the WOW trail, down the rails track behind SD (a weekend camping jamboree on their beach with free syringes for those that want to partake in other mood altering substances), and short trip down the rail line to the Weirs for a completely comatose lake version of Woodstock on Weirs Beach.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Somehow I saw that coming...

Next thing will be ''Take the Lake'' with one big meth movement.
The Parade will start in downtown Laconia and move briskly up the WOW trail, down the rails track behind SD (a weekend camping jamboree on their beach with free syringes for those that want to partake in other mood altering substances), and short trip down the rail line to the Weirs for a completely comatose lake version of Woodstock on Weirs Beach.

Holy cow John...I didn't think you had it in you! That was hilarious!!

Keep it up!

Dan

[John Mercier]

I actually wish that I had done it in jest.

I have some very bad feelings for the future of Laconia.