Conference vicki::boats

    wonder if you are subjected to inland rules being in the river.
    That is does the state regulate what is and isn't, or does the
    Coast Guard. Guess i'd call the local boat registry for more info.
    
    
    
    
    
    A friend of mine says, if your beyond the first bridge in the
    salt, you need a fishing license. i have never seen anyone who
    is fishing wearing a fishing license. It may be true, but
    i don't think anyone at least in this spot cares.
    
    
    JIm.
    

    FWIW
    
    The state may have sanctioned the placement of No Wake signs because
    the area is being used or is planned for use as a swimming area, where
    people, including small children, can be tossed from small floating
    rafts or inner tubes.
    
    From what I have heard, if the signs were placed by anybody but the
    regulating authority, a call to that authority about the signs will
    result in their immediate removal by that authority, which will likely
    be as jealous of its power as any other regulating authority.

    
    I know that on the Merrimack you need permission from the Corp of
    Engineers to put in any markers.  I assume this is true on any
    "Navigable" waters.  
    
    My belief has always been that the waters are considered "Navigable"
    until you hit the first 'dam' (either natural or man made) vs a
    structure such as a 'bridge'. (Think this is where the fishing licence
    rule comes in also).
    
    If someone puts a marker in without permission from the Corp. of Eng -
    and someone hits that marker - the person who put the marker in will
    find he has some big insurance coverage problems.  
    
    Once the Corp. has given permission (which includes touching base with
    the Coast Guard) either the CG or the local harbor master usually
    places the markers (perhaps by simply telling the marina owner it's OK)
    
    An interesting point is the argument around a "No Wake" marker vs
    something like "5 MPH" -- on the Merrimack it has been deemed that the
    "x MPH" markers can not be used (though they are seen) due to the fact
    that to maintain steerage at headway speed a vessel may have to do more
    than the posted speed simply because the current is 4-6 knots.
    
    As noted - the intent is what counts -- a Vessel is responsible for
    it's wake.  I disagree that giving a wide berth alows the wake to die
    down -- I see wakes travel 1/2 mile plus with no problem.  Wakes seem
    to die out to those on the boat because the angle and distance of view
    is changing - but they really keep on going until they hit something - a
    dock, wave, another wake ...
    Folks often argue that a boat at a marina slip or mooring needs to be 
    tied in a way that can handle a storm etc...; however, we need to keep 
    in mind that weather is predictable over a period of time where wakes are 
    not.
    I don't boil water etc.. at my slip in high winds etc..; but, if it's a
    calm day I should be able to assume it's safe ---a surprise wake can
    easily burn the cook, flip a kid off a dock, etc...
    
    Wakes are probably the second most controversial topic in boating - 
    next to what is a good anchor ----
                                       Take care,
                                                 Lou

    I can agree with Lou on the "where the hell did that wake come from"
    
    theory, most times the boat has long since passed.
    
    JIm..

    	With regard to the question about who the governing body is, its
    the Coast Guard. The water is still tidal in the area. The towns along
    a river also have some juristiction, for instance Randolph and Richmond
    have harbormasters who regulate locations and design of moorings etc.
    The Randolph harbormaster also enforces the no-wake zone near the town
    landing.
    	Another point is that there are some large boats on the river and I
    can't imagine them making much headway without throwing a considerable
    wake. I wonder if being in close proximity to a commercial channel has
    any bearing on the matter.
    	Interesting discussion so far. Anyone else want to jump in?
    
    Paul

    The New Hampshire authorites define No Wake as being "under 6 MPH."
    
    My boat makes considerable waves at 6 MPH. I'm sure that Marine Patrol
    would not err on the side of the boater. I keep my speed to a crawl in
    the no wake zones. 
    
    It would seem that in Paul's case, the harbor masters must have already
    seen these markers, and if so, must authorize their placement. The
    chance of their not having seen these markers are slim, since they
    spend so much time on the water. 
    
    Mike

    In Maryland it's the State Dept of Natural Resources that has the say
    on no wake zones in and around the Chesapeake bay. We have a small
    creek that leads back to our marina and a hot rod Wellcraft was
    ticketed Sunday.
    FWIW in a recent article from Boat US a woman was injured by a passing
    boat throwing a decent wake. The courts awarded her $750,000. The
    boater who was responsible only had 100k in liability insurance.
    It's better to be safe than broke !
    
    
    

    .7
    
    Out of idle curiosity, how was the woman injured by the wake?

    .8
    According to the article the boat was in an area designiated for
    overnight anchorage. She was thrown into a bulkhead and suffered damage
    to her right eye. 
    If someone has the monthly newsletter from Boat US they could re-write
    here. I did not keep my copy.
    
    
    
    

    	I went on the river again last weekend and you'll never guess who
    passed me as I slowed down for the no-wake area...the Randolph
    Harbormaster. I guess he doesn't consider it a legal requirement,
    except in his town.
    	I pitty the folks in the marina; they'll be bouncing all over till
    the they figure a way to enforce the no-wake zone.