Lake Daytime Speed Limit

[chachee52]

If I remember correctly, when the speed limit was put into affect, the chief of MP at that time did say that he was against the speed limit. Mostly because he said that less than 1% of boating accidents in NH had to do with speed. there were other reasons.
I too am, and was back in the day, on the side of leave the Broads no speed limit and keep the bays with a limit.
And there are are roads in the North West where my friend was stationed that had speed that said "at your own risk". And I'm sorry, but 93 is pretty much no speed limit at times.
Also when I was younger, there were way more MP boats on the water and they did pull people over for the 150' rule. I witnessed it many times.
Everyone isn't going to be happy with any rule that anyone suggests. This is one reason I don't live in a Condo. I might agree with a rule but don't tell me that I can't do it

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by chachee52

And I'm sorry, but 93 is pretty much no speed limit at times.

NH Office of Highway Safety .... https://twitter.com/nh_ohs/status/1480936528868261888

[chachee52]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

NH Office of Highway Safety .... https://twitter.com/nh_ohs/status/1480936528868261888

Never said that it didn't. Just sharing my opinion that on 93 people drive whatever they want anyway. Hence I put the laughing emoji on it. SenterCoveGuy said " what if 93 had no speed limit". Got passed the other day while I was going 75 keeping up with traffic like I was going about 20 mph.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by chachee52

If I remember correctly, when the speed limit was put into affect, the chief of MP at that time did say that he was against the speed limit. Mostly because he said that less than 1% of boating accidents in NH had to do with speed. there were other reasons.
I too am, and was back in the day, on the side of leave the Broads no speed limit and keep the bays with a limit.
And there are are roads in the North West where my friend was stationed that had speed that said "at your own risk". And I'm sorry, but 93 is pretty much no speed limit at times.
Also when I was younger, there were way more MP boats on the water and they did pull people over for the 150' rule. I witnessed it many times.
Everyone isn't going to be happy with any rule that anyone suggests. This is one reason I don't live in a Condo. I might agree with a rule but don't tell me that I can't do it

Tim (Captain of MP) was opposed because the system is not accurate unless being approached or following a vessel at a specific angle. That is much different than the highway or trails where a LEO or CO can position themselves more easily to the angle of oncoming traffic.

[chachee52]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Tim (Captain of MP) was opposed because the system is not accurate unless being approached or following a vessel at a specific angle. That is much different than the highway or trails where a LEO or CO can position themselves more easily to the angle of oncoming traffic.

That was "one of the other reasons". Didn't want to add another aspect to the law in this discussion. Was trying to keep it to the speed. But yes, radar gun are almost useless on the water. Also the initial "testing" time frame was significantly decreased before they passed the bill.

[John Mercier]

That was his main reason. It is the same reason that the Major (Tim Acerno) of F&G gave against snowmobile/OHRV speed limits on frozen lakes/ponds.

They have brakes and don't create a wake, unlike boats, and still have the same setbacks from other objects.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by chachee52

That was "one of the other reasons". Didn't want to add another aspect to the law in this discussion. Was trying to keep it to the speed. But yes, radar gun are almost useless on the water. Also the initial "testing" time frame was significantly decreased before they passed the bill.

There were speed limits on our roads before there was radar. Just because enforcement may be more difficult on the water is no reason to throw out the speed limit in its entirety. Most people obey the law. Ditto just because some people pass you when driving 75 MPH on 93 is no reason to allow unlimited speeds on our highways.

As far as the Broads and unlimited speeds...this was shot down 11 years ago in Concord as well. It's the hub of the lake where people travel to get to island homes or from one port to another. Fishermen, sailors (including kids learning to sail with the LWSA), family boaters are all going in different directions.

Given the # of businesses and high profile organizations opposing HB 1424 this bill will be laughed right out of the State House. HB 1424 is nutz.

Need another reason to keep the speed limits on the lake and Broads: per Lake Winni Assoc. email sent out to its 1000 members last week: "The number of people obtaining their boat license has increased from 6500 in 2019 to over 30,000 in 2020. This represents almost a 500% increase in new and inexperienced boaters on our lakes."
And NH boat registrations have increased 14.7 % since 2013.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

There were speed limits on our roads before there was radar. Just because enforcement may be more difficult on the water is no reason to throw out the speed limit in its entirety. Most people obey the law. Ditto just because some people pass you when driving 75 MPH on 93 is no reason to allow unlimited speeds on our highways.

As far as the Broads and unlimited speeds...this was shot down 11 years ago in Concord as well. It's the hub of the lake where people travel to get to island homes or from one port to another. Fishermen, sailors (including kids learning to sail with the LWSA), family boaters are all going in different directions.

Given the # of businesses and high profile organizations opposing HB 1424 this bill will be laughed right out of the State House. HB 1424 is nutz.

Need another reason to keep the speed limits on the lake and Broads: per Lake Winni Assoc. email sent out to its 1000 members last week: "The number of people obtaining their boat license has increased from 6500 in 2019 to over 30,000 in 2020. This represents almost a 500% increase in new and inexperienced boaters on our lakes."
And NH boat registrations have increased 14.7 % since 2013.

Flush the speed limit down the toilet where it belongs.

[Winilyme]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Flush the speed limit down the toilet where it belongs.

Such a sophisticated comment.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Winilyme

Such a sophisticated comment.

We’ll excuse me, you elitist snob. How about “Repeal the speed limit law, and dispose of it in the repealed law file.” Does that live up to your sophisticated standards?

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

We’ll excuse me, you elitist snob. How about “Repeal the speed limit law, and dispose of it in the repealed law file”. Does that live up to your sophisticated standards?

With punctuation flaws like that, I should hope not. I mean, we're in America—put the period INSIDE the quotation marks, you heathen!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[8gv]

Now that we have settled the lake speed limit issue can we please move on to more pressing items?

It drives me nuts when a singular subject is conjugated as if it were plural!

Also, let's not conjugate with the noun found in a prepositional phrase.

It is not the subject.

Sheesh!

Thank you!

[gillygirl]

Originally Posted by 8gv

Now that we have settled the lake speed limit issue can we please move on to more pressing items?

It drives me nuts when a singular subject is conjugated as if it were plural!

Also, let's not conjugate with the noun found in a prepositional phrase.

It is not the subject.

Sheesh!

Thank you!

Sum, es, est, sumis, estis, sunt.

Sorry, I saw the word conjugate and my Latin teacher entered my body.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[John Mercier]

Which would mean that even if they changed it... more than likely they would need to change it back.

The lakes... especially Winnipesaukee... is going to draw a lot more people and homes to it over the next decade. I can't even imagine how F&G is going to handle the public demand for launch sites.

[chachee52]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

There were speed limits on our roads before there was radar. Just because enforcement may be more difficult on the water is no reason to throw out the speed limit in its entirety. Most people obey the law. Ditto just because some people pass you when driving 75 MPH on 93 is no reason to allow unlimited speeds on our highways.

As far as the Broads and unlimited speeds...this was shot down 11 years ago in Concord as well. It's the hub of the lake where people travel to get to island homes or from one port to another. Fishermen, sailors (including kids learning to sail with the LWSA), family boaters are all going in different directions.

Given the # of businesses and high profile organizations opposing HB 1424 this bill will be laughed right out of the State House. HB 1424 is nutz.

Need another reason to keep the speed limits on the lake and Broads: per Lake Winni Assoc. email sent out to its 1000 members last week: "The number of people obtaining their boat license has increased from 6500 in 2019 to over 30,000 in 2020. This represents almost a 500% increase in new and inexperienced boaters on our lakes."
And NH boat registrations have increased 14.7 % since 2013.

And there was no speed limit on the lake for years as well, and I don't have the stats but there are also more cars on the road as well and the speed limit on most highways have increased as well.

I've said it so many times. one rule about anything is never going to please everyone. But again if > 1% of boat accidents had to do with speed when the law went into affect, but I would imagine that car accidents due to speed is higher.

Either way, speed limit or not, my boat doesn't do 45 so it doesn't effect me, but it will with the 600 hp pontoon boat that was at the boat show this week!!!

[Jdarby]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Need another reason to keep the speed limits on the lake and Broads: per Lake Winni Assoc. email sent out to its 1000 members last week: "The number of people obtaining their boat license has increased from 6500 in 2019 to over 30,000 in 2020. This represents almost a 500% increase in new and inexperienced boaters on our lakes."
And NH boat registrations have increased 14.7 % since 2013.

This is exactly my concern with removing the limit. The lack of experience was obvious on the water last summer. Sure, every summer you have the clueless boat renters but it seemed far worse this last season. I just think the timing for this is bad with that variable in play.



Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[lakewinnie]

Originally Posted by Jdarby

This is exactly my concern with removing the limit. The lack of experience was obvious on the water last summer. Sure, every summer you have the clueless boat renters but it seemed far worse this last season. I just think the timing for this is bad with that variable in play.



Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

I was opposed to the speed limit back when the law passed. I never thought it was about safety - it was my understanding that the real culprit in most fatal accidents had been alcohol.

Today, I'm more on-the-fence. I did see a lot more idiots on the lake these past few summers compared to 12-14 years ago. Although, at the same time, I don't recall the recent new wave of boaters going at excessive speeds. My recent experience is that many of these idiots do not know the rules of the road.

[John Mercier]

Because the one item they think they remember is the speed limit.
Imagine them at a faster pace.

[Patofnaud]

Too many laws.

Just have one law, a "do not be stupid " law, and repeal the dozens of other laws that all come down to stopping folks from being stupid.

You cut someone off, you're stupid, here's your ticket.
You swamp someone, you're stupid, here's your ticket.
You fly through an NWZ, you're stupid, here's your ticket.
You ride on the swim platform, you're stupid, here's your ticket.
You take your dark green/black kayak/canoe way offshore on a Saturday afternoon, you're stupid, here's your ticket.
Etc,,,

And actually, a planning hull when going faster makes LESS wake/erosion than one plowing along. Speed = better. Just don't do it when it would be a stupid thing to do.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by Patofnaud

Too many laws.

Just have one law, a "do not be stupid " law, and repeal the dozens of other laws that all come down to stopping folks from being stupid.

You cut someone off, you're stupid, here's your ticket.
You swamp someone, you're stupid, here's your ticket.
You fly through an NWZ, you're stupid, here's your ticket.
You ride on the swim platform, you're stupid, here's your ticket.
You take your dark green/black kayak/canoe way offshore on a Saturday afternoon, you're stupid, here's your ticket.
Etc,,,

And actually, a planning hull when going faster makes LESS wake/erosion than one plowing along. Speed = better. Just don't do it when it would be a stupid thing to do.

Without looking it up, isn't that USCG rule 6? Only they use the word "reasonable".

[Patofnaud]

You are correct sir. Been a long time since I dipped a prop in the salty stuff.

Rule 6 - Safe Speed
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

Nice and simple. A lot simpler than RSA's abc123, xyz234, 5.89 and 2.4 but only during certain times if maintaining proper steerage unless the sun is in your eyes 30 mins before sunset. (/sarcasm)

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Patofnaud

Too many laws.

Just have one law, a "do not be stupid " law, and repeal the dozens of other laws that all come down to stopping folks from being stupid.

You cut someone off, you're stupid, here's your ticket.
You swamp someone, you're stupid, here's your ticket.
You fly through an NWZ, you're stupid, here's your ticket.
You ride on the swim platform, you're stupid, here's your ticket.
You take your dark green/black kayak/canoe way offshore on a Saturday afternoon, you're stupid, here's your ticket.
Etc,,,

And actually, a planning hull when going faster makes LESS wake/erosion than one plowing along. Speed = better. Just don't do it when it would be a stupid thing to do.

Daytime Speed Limit is 45 mph. You are saying that boats don't plane at that speed?

[Patofnaud]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Daytime Speed Limit is 45 mph. You are saying that boats don't plane at that speed?

No, where did you see that? I said faster = less wake.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Patofnaud

No, where did you see that? I said faster = less wake.

I presume that whether a boat is traveling at 45 mph or at 75 mph it would be roughly on plane and create about the same wake although with a different wave speed... the displacement being roughly the same.

The distance the wave travels, and the speed that it travels, is what allows the second craft to take action to navigate the disruption in the surface.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Tim (Captain of MP) was opposed because the system is not accurate unless being approached or following a vessel at a specific angle. That is much different than the highway or trails where a LEO or CO can position themselves more easily to the angle of oncoming traffic.

Marine Patrol Director David Barrett, Captain Dunleavy's boss, opposed the speed limit law in 2005.

The head of the state agency that would have to enforce the limits is opposed. Marine Patrol Director David Barrett said the law would be unenforceable. He also said supporters are pushing the law to get rid of high-performance speed boats.

"This is feel-good legislation," Barrett said. "The proponents are being disingenuous. This is exclusionary and being used to get rid of a kind of boat they don't like."

Although David Barrett has passed away (2011) he was right in 2005, and remains right today.

[sunset on the dock]

Hmmm...in 2011 80% of NH house voted in favor of the speed limit with an even higher percentage from reps representing towns that border the lake. Now with more boats registered in NH and a 500% increase in boating licenses I wonder how the vote will go this time?!

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

"This is feel-good legislation," Barrett said.[/B] "The proponents are being disingenuous. This is exclusionary and being used to get rid of a kind of boat they don't like."

Although David Barrett has passed away (2011) he was right in 2005, and remains right today.

Well, he can't really be right about both of these points at once, but does offer some insight. If it's "feel-good legislation" that means it does nothing. If it's "getting rid of a kind of boat they don't like", I agree--it has gotten rid of a large number of very load boats--as posted above.

Like so many issues on the lake--it is a small number of insensitive jerks that create the demand for more rules. When your boat can be heard a mile away, or your wake is creating a washing machine effect in a cove because you're circling 20X, you're creating the support for more legislation

[John Mercier]

I don't think it was loud boats. Exhaust regulation would have done that.
Common property requires them to protect the interests of even the lightest user.
At 150 feet, wouldn't a faster boat create more of a disrupting wake to non-motorized users/etc?

Noise even from a static source would be more of the first regulation.
But I think speed and distance is more about the wake and reaction time.

[Dick]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

At 150 feet, wouldn't a faster boat create more of a disrupting wake to non-motorized users/etc?

Actually, the opposite is true. For example, bass boats make a small wake when on
plane. Big cruisers plowing along at slow speeds and wake boats generate very big wakes

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Dick

Actually, the opposite is true. For example, bass boats make a small wake when on
plane. Big cruisers plowing along at slow speeds and wake boats generate very big wakes

Again that is amplitude of the wave...

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

I don't think it was loud boats. Exhaust regulation would have done that.
Common property requires them to protect the interests of even the lightest user.
At 150 feet, wouldn't a faster boat create more of a disrupting wake to non-motorized users/etc?

When it comes to planing hulls, boat wakes are function of water displacement & mass... the faster a boat goes the less mass is in the water, the less mass in the water, the less energy the wake has to cause damage.

Woodsy

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

When it comes to planing hulls, boat wakes are function of water displacement & mass... the faster a boat goes the less mass is in the water, the less mass in the water, the less energy the wake has to cause damage.

Woodsy

After a certain speed... the same amount of displacement will occur regardless. It would never get to the point that no mass was in the water.

[John Mercier]

In the end, I think they will legislate whatever needs to be changed to increase the property values surrounding the lake. It shifts more of the tax burden toward lake properties... and that is supported by the greatest number of constituents.

The recent build-out of certain parcels, along with the faster increase in valuation of certain areas, has help to keep taxation in other parts more suppressed.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

After a certain speed... the same amount of displacement will occur regardless. It would never get to the point that no mass was in the water.

You do not understand how planing hulls work... while there will be always be "some" mass in the water, at speed it is a fractional amount of the total boat weight/displacement.

Boats with planing hulls are designed to rise up and glide on top of the water when enough power is supplied. These boats may operate like displacement hulls when at rest or at slow speeds but climb toward the surface of the water as they move faster.

Boats with planing hulls can skim along at high speed, riding almost on top of the water rather than pushing it aside. The faster a planing hull goes in the water.. the less water is displaced by the mass of the boat. The less boat in the water, the less energy the boat wake has.

Think of a flat stone skipping across the top of the water...

Woodsy

[Dick]

What a shame that the sound system used in Representatives Hall was so poor that most of us could not hear/understand the speakers.
Further, did it seem to you that the House Transportation representatives were disengaged . . .didn't want to be there.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

You do not understand how planing hulls work... while there will be always be "some" mass in the water, at speed it is a fractional amount of the total boat weight/displacement.

Boats with planing hulls are designed to rise up and glide on top of the water when enough power is supplied. These boats may operate like displacement hulls when at rest or at slow speeds but climb toward the surface of the water as they move faster.

Boats with planing hulls can skim along at high speed, riding almost on top of the water rather than pushing it aside. The faster a planing hull goes in the water.. the less water is displaced by the mass of the boat. The less boat in the water, the less energy the boat wake has.

Think of a flat stone skipping across the top of the water...

Woodsy

I do understand the inverse function of displacement and speed. That is why I question wave speed. A higher wave speed... even if the wave has a lower amplitude... results in a greater conservation of kinetic energy over a specified distance. That is what the scientific studies showed.
The faster boat is displacing less water mass at a higher rate of speed.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

I do understand the inverse function of displacement and speed. That is why I question wave speed. A higher wave speed... even if the wave has a lower amplitude... results in a greater conservation of kinetic energy over a specified distance. That is what the scientific studies showed.
The faster boat is displacing less water mass at a higher rate of speed.

You are correct in that the faster boat (on plane) is displacing far less water at a higher rate of speed than it would at a slower speed. It is also transferring far less energy to the water.

The planing hull design is where the relationships change. Planing hulls are designed to give little resistance to the water and take advantage of hydrodynamic lifting.

The hydrodynamic lift of the hull design is what changes the wave form of the wake. When on plane there is very little displacement (relative to size & mass) very little drag (mostly the drives) and thus very little energy transferred to the water in the form of a wake. The energy is instead expended as speed.

The wake of boat on plane has very little energy transferred from the hull, so the amplitude is low, wave energy is low, and wake dissipates very quickly.

Woodsy

[John Mercier]

But it is increasing wave speed.
That is what all the studies that they do is telling them.

They aren't slowing the rate of speed near shore just because they feel like it.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

But it is increasing wave speed.
That is what all the studies that they do is telling them.

They aren't slowing the rate of speed near shore just because they feel like it.

All functions of a wake created by a boat are the result of an energy transfer. This energy transfer is directly related to boat displacement. The amount of energy in a wave depends on its height and wavelength as well as the distance over which it breaks. Given equal wavelengths, a wave with greater amplitude will release more energy when it falls back to sea level than a wave of lesser amplitude. The speed of the waves has little to do with this.

A boat on plane displaces very little water and thus transmits very little energy to the water. The low energy waves dissipate quickly. Assuming the boat on plane maintains 150' off the shoreline (per the law) by the time the wake reaches the shore there is little energy left.

This wave energy discussion is the crux of all the proposed wakeboat rules.

Woodsy

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

All functions of a wake created by a boat are the result of an energy transfer. This energy transfer is directly related to boat displacement. The amount of energy in a wave depends on its height and wavelength as well as the distance over which it breaks. Given equal wavelengths, a wave with greater amplitude will release more energy when it falls back to sea level than a wave of lesser amplitude. The speed of the waves has little to do with this.

A boat on plane displaces very little water and thus transmits very little energy to the water. The low energy waves dissipate quickly. Assuming the boat on plane maintains 150' off the shoreline (per the law) by the time the wake reaches the shore there is little energy left.

This wave energy discussion is the crux of all the proposed wakeboat rules.

Woodsy

You are still not submitting a study to the Legislature with all your credentials to support your findings. The Lake Association is.
Should a court fight ensue at a later date... most lawyers would rather have the credentialed studies on their side.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

You are still not submitting a study to the Legislature with all your credentials to support your findings. The Lake Association is.
Should a court fight ensue at a later date... most lawyers would rather have the credentialed studies on their side.

Blah Blah Blah... our discussion was about wave energy. There are plenty of credible studies that support my findings. I certainly could have posted my links but as you seemed so focused on wave speed the point would have been moot.

Woodsy

[John Mercier]

Not the ones being presented to the Legislature.
The Legislature is a very large body representing very diverse interests... and many times doing what it can to avoid lawsuits.

So somewhere along the line it determined that a boat should not come near the shore or another object in the water if travelling at more than headway speed.

The other object in the water may be for safety and reaction time - who knows? - but the shore has to be erosion... and that must mean the transmission of kinetic force in some manner.

You would need to present studies to overcome that... especially for legislators that are not focused on Lake Winnipesaukee - unless the bill specifies Lake Winnipesaukee.

For Lake Winnipesaukee, and maybe some other lakes, it should be rather easy... they want the property around the lake - within sight of the lake - to build dramatically in value... as it lowers the relative taxation to the properties not near the lake.

If you can show the safety and erosion risks are lower, then the higher speeds may lead to the property around the lake double or tripling in value - maybe a bit over done... but higher than now. That would lower the amount of property tax that needs to come from the other properties within a municipality, school district, and even the county.

[Blyblvrd]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Not the ones being presented to the Legislature.
The Legislature is a very large body representing very diverse interests... and many times doing what it can to avoid lawsuits.

So somewhere along the line it determined that a boat should not come near the shore or another object in the water if travelling at more than headway speed.

The other object in the water may be for safety and reaction time - who knows? - but the shore has to be erosion... and that must mean the transmission of kinetic force in some manner.

You would need to present studies to overcome that... especially for legislators that are not focused on Lake Winnipesaukee - unless the bill specifies Lake Winnipesaukee.

For Lake Winnipesaukee, and maybe some other lakes, it should be rather easy... they want the property around the lake - within sight of the lake - to build dramatically in value... as it lowers the relative taxation to the properties not near the lake.

If you can show the safety and erosion risks are lower, then the higher speeds may lead to the property around the lake double or tripling in value - maybe a bit over done... but higher than now. That would lower the amount of property tax that needs to come from the other properties within a municipality, school district, and even the county.

Lol.


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[John Mercier]

It isn't really funny.
There are many, such as myself, that want to see the lake properties increase in value and be built out... there are others that want to see that build out restrained.
If there is no additional erosion or safety issues by increasing, or doing away with, a limit that is very hard to enforce... it would mean that more boaters may want to be on our local waters.
Those boaters would want direct access rather than the use of a public access that may have limited parking and longer waits.

We could see a build out that might take decades due to material prices transpire quickly. That build out removes pressure on local budgets and keeps our property rate from rising.

But we have always been told that added erosion and loss of safety would result in collapsing property values... something that would shift costs back to us.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

It isn't really funny.
There are many, such as myself, that want to see the lake properties increase in value and be built out... there are others that want to see that build out restrained.

But we have always been told that added erosion and loss of safety would result in collapsing property values... something that would shift costs back to us.

"There are many, such as myself, that want to see the lake properties increase in value" Would that be so people in waterfront homeowners can carry the heavy end of the tax burden?

"Shift costs back to us"? So you see the issue as waterfront owners VS non waterfront owners?

First: There are many waterfront property owners who are year round New Hampshire residents. Making an Us VS them self serving argument looks petty.

But more important: New Hampshire has set itself up through it's tax structure to benefit substantially from non resident taxes and the tax revenue supported by the tourist industry. Many,many non residents contribute substantially to the tax base that the state uses, while taking very little in government supported services.

It is counter productive to bite the hand that feeds you.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

It isn't really funny.
There are many, such as myself, that want to see the lake properties increase in value and be built out... there are others that want to see that build out restrained.

There has to be a balance. A 2015 Moultonboro watershed study included a build-out report. Water quality metrics were measured for today, for a pre-development era and for build-out based on current regulations. It showed that, at the time there was 26% of land within the study area that could be built on. Build-out would occur between 2039 and 2058, depending on growth rates. A phosphorus level above 8 accelerates aging of the lake. We are already there in the Moultonboro Bay Inlet study area and would add to the aging acceleration if build-out happened. See graphic. Basin 1 is Greens Basin inner basin, Basin 2 is the basin including Evergreen Island and Basin 3 is from Lees Mills to roughly Buzzels Cove. TP is total phosphorus concentration.

Even in today's building craze, too many wavers are granted and many rules to control water runoff are ignored. Restraint is needed because the pressure to build satisfies an immediate need but the impact lags by decades. By the time cyanobacteria blooms keep us out of the water every August, it will be too late for easy corrections.

[lakewinnie]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

It isn't really funny.
There are many, such as myself, that want to see the lake properties increase in value and be built out... there are others that want to see that build out restrained.
If there is no additional erosion or safety issues by increasing, or doing away with, a limit that is very hard to enforce... it would mean that more boaters may want to be on our local waters.
Those boaters would want direct access rather than the use of a public access that may have limited parking and longer waits.

We could see a build out that might take decades due to material prices transpire quickly. That build out removes pressure on local budgets and keeps our property rate from rising.

But we have always been told that added erosion and loss of safety would result in collapsing property values... something that would shift costs back to us.

That's funny - I thought I read somewhere (maybe it was in an old thread) that the Lake was for the enjoyment and use of all NH residents, not just waterfront landowners. Now getting back to boats and speed limits...

[znh]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

All functions of a wake created by a boat are the result of an energy transfer. This energy transfer is directly related to boat displacement. The amount of energy in a wave depends on its height and wavelength as well as the distance over which it breaks. Given equal wavelengths, a wave with greater amplitude will release more energy when it falls back to sea level than a wave of lesser amplitude. The speed of the waves has little to do with this.

A boat on plane displaces very little water and thus transmits very little energy to the water. The low energy waves dissipate quickly. Assuming the boat on plane maintains 150' off the shoreline (per the law) by the time the wake reaches the shore there is little energy left.

This wave energy discussion is the crux of all the proposed wakeboat rules.

Woodsy

That sounds good. Too bad most of the large cruisers that create giant wakes are never anywhere near on plane...hence the issue with their giant wakes.

Speed limits and wakes seems like two completely separate issues. I know I'm a little late to the thread here but why are the two being discussed under the same umbrella?

[upthesaukee]

Originally Posted by znh

That sounds good. Too bad most of the large cruisers that create giant wakes are never anywhere near on plane...hence the issue with their giant wakes.

Speed limits and wakes seems like two completely separate issues. I know I'm a little late to the thread here but why are the two being discussed under the same umbrella?

Many, if not most, of the large cruisers do not have "planing hulls", they have displacement hulls. They will not get up on plane in the way our bowriders and runabouts do.

Dave