No Wake at the Barbers Pole...???

[winni83]

Let’s see if I have this right. Anyone one who disagrees with BIM, El C or Ed C or his cadre is “emotionally pre-pubescent or blind, or both” or even worse, a “Democrat”. Perhaps some of your supporters might be of that politically persuasion. Your self serving and patently false descriptions of how “heavenly” it is as result of the speed limit fool on one and you are simply preaching to your adoring choir and producing word bites in an attempt to denigrate all those who disagree with you.

As I noted previously:

“Obviously, there has been a death among the deities and APS, SOTD, TB, BI, El-C et. al. have been appointed to determine infallibly what is reasonable and civilized for us all, whether it be speed, horsepower, size or type of boat, no wake zones or whatever else annoys or disturbs them from time to time.”

BIM, El C or Ed C refers to hypocrisy, childishness and idiocy. He should look in the mirror for perfect examples, assuming that the mirror does not fracture in horror. Your pathetic attempts to insult someone like Hazelnut demonstrate your true character. Suggesting on a public forum that someone may beat children or abuse them emotionally is beyond contempt. When you have no remaining rational arguments, you resort to this. And to think that someone would thank you for that post! Your tactics are those of a megalomaniac and despot.

With such a fearless, honest, honorable and never deceptive leader as BIM, El C or Ed C and his band of sycophants, we can all sleep, or boat, well.

[Bearislandmoose]

This unmoderated forum is great, it allows you guys to show your real simian selves and degrade into the behavior that you use to display when you were behind the wheels of your thunder boats. The slightest frustration, and you turn into babbling and vulgar bullies.
The lake was just great this summer...just like the summer before. No high speed accidents, nobody killed because someone was driving his (or her) boat too fast. The kids camps were taking their members out canoeing again. Sailing returned in a big way. Trolling for salmon in the Broads was enjoyable again. It was Winnipesaukee the way it is supposed to be... The way it always was before you...the way it is depicted in our tourism brochures and ads. It was shared safely and enjoyably by everyone. You guys repeatedly talked about how the SL did not chase you away or slow you down, so obviously, it was not a problem for you. But that backfired, so now you are trying to claim differently...even resorting to some silly tactic that you are all buying Carvers to swamp us and teach us a lesson. What good sports you are.
You just oppose the SL because you did not get your way, as you are so accustomed. You just don't like rules and limitations no matter how reasonable. If we asked for a 200MPH SL, you would have opposed it and you'd be fighting to repeal it.

"Safe" boaters my ***. You can put lipstick on a pig, but its still a pig.

[winni83]

Q. E. D.

Thanks.

[ApS]

Not one person in the SBONH had anything to do with any other NWZ on the lake.
How can this be stated as fact? :eek2:

No members from Winnilakers, SOS or NHRBA among this lake's "Safest-Boaters" mob? :confused:

[jrc]

Watching this is weird, it's like some of the old usenet groups in the 1990's. I trying to guess who will break Godwin's law first.

Calling someone a Democrat doesn't count.

[Bearislandmoose]

Is Yosemite Sam and Acres Per Second the same person? I find it strange that Y.S. has thanked APS several times and it doesn't fit his profile.:confused:

Another mystery solved! Another scoundrel unmasked! Or perhaps YS is Warren, who is also Ed, who is also Sandy. This proves that there is only one person in NH who favors the SL and opposes "Safe" Boaters. He or she just keeps switching identities. What a conspiracy! We need to alert the Legislature. They've made a grave error! THEY WERE TRICKED!!!

I think its you guys that are all the same person. And that person is a 13 year old locked in his room and circumventing the parental controls his parents thought they put on his computer.

[NoBozo]

Another mystery solved! Another scoundrel unmasked! Or perhaps YS is Warren, who is also Ed, who is also Sandy. This proves that there is only one person in NH who favors the SL and opposes "Safe" Boaters. He or she just keeps switching identities. What a conspiracy! We need to alert the Legislature. They've made a grave error! THEY WERE TRICKED!!!

I think its you guys that are all the same person. And that person is a 13 year old locked in his room and circumventing the parental controls his parents thought they put on his computer.


Hey Moose: You lookin in the mirror again...???? I find that Liberals lookin in the mirror see themselves, and are depressed, and then blame the OTHER side for what they see. Just an observation. :coolsm: NB

BTW: I agree that there is ONE person using multiple screen names here. It's obvious...........BUT... it adds "LIFE" to the forum......NO..?? And every once in awile... "LIFE" is required to keep the forum....lively......:look: NB

[Yosemite Sam]

Is Yosemite Sam and Acres Per Second the same person? I find it strange that Y.S. has thanked APS several times and it doesn't fit his profile.:confused:

Dr. Seuss has the answer:

Sam I am
I am Sam
I am Sam
Sam I am.
I would not like them here or there.
I would not like them anywhere.
I do not like green eggs and ham.
I do not like them Sam I Am.
Say!
I like green eggs and ham!
I do! I like them, Sam-I-am!
:D

[sunset on the dock]

Warren hahaha Love ya man...... I mean seriously I know hundreds of people that read, but do not post here, and they are hysterically laughing at you, as am I.

Are they same people you met in taverns, arcades, and gas stations, not one of whom was in favor of the speed limit? Ha Ha Ha Ha:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Thanks for the laughs.

[Bearislandmoose]

I just keep thinking how scary it is to think that a guy like this has our little kids for 6 hours a day. Imagine if Mommy really knew who she was entrusting little Suzie to? Very disturbing.

[Bearislandmoose]

:laugh:... Muhuhuhuhahahaha ... :laugh: ...:laugh: ...:laugh: ...:laugh: ... hahahahahahahah ...:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: ...hahahahahaha ...:laugh::laugh::laugh: ... I'm laughing so hard ...:laugh: ... Oh man I have to wipe the tears now...:laugh:... wow! ...:eek: ...:confused:

Wow. Very scary. There are support groups (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&gid=40214849936) for people who so excessively use emoticons and rant on like this with no particular purpose. For the rest of us, there are discussion groups (http://www.adminaddict.net/forum/community-organization/excessive-emoticon-usage-1602/) that talk about you. 16 smilies in one post? ...Muhaha? ...and the way you "use smilies in a wild and un-organized fashion - or in other words, use them in a way that relays a sense of immaturity" perfectly fits the profile of a ***.

Are you really a teacher of little kids or is this just a Halloween prank? Please be honest with me, are you Leo Sandy? He's that teacher who always writes those letters to the LDS...is that really you?

Now, let's get back on topic. Are you guys going to use the same passion to have your Eagle Island (Bourgeoious) NWZ repealed because it too was "put through under the radar"? I've asked this several times and you guys keep changing the topic and using red herring responses to name-call and turn the discussion into one about me. Just answer yes or no.

That Eagle Island NWZ process was IDENTICAL to the BP one in every way, yet not only were you-all behind it because it gave one of your "safe" members a personal quiet zone to enjoy when he was not out in his thunder boat harassing the rest of us, but now you do not want to discuss it because it shows the hypocrisy of your current actions, and shows the lie that "its not about being able to go really fast, we only want these things to be done in the open" really is.

Was the SL "put through under the radar" too? You should use also try this argument when you file for that repeal.:emb:

I do not care much about the Barber Pole area. I'm over there maybe five times a year and am usually trolling and going headway speed anyway. Bass boaters sometimes pass me going way too fast, but they are not as threatening as a 10000 pound thunder boat and the operators of bass boats can see over their bows, and are rarely drunk, so I don't worry about them running me over. I hope the BP NWZ goes through, only because it is what the people who live there...the people who know first hand what goes on there day in and day out... want. And because I know that the "its not about being able to go really fast, we only want these things to be done in the open" motto was written by the same phonies who gave us "safe boaters"...and I know who they really are and what they are really about.

Sorry if all this disturbs you, but you reap what you sow.

Now please have that emoticon issue looked into. It might not do any harm in and of itself, but it is a marker for a progressively deteriorating mental state that should be nipped in the bud.

[Bearislandmoose]

Question: Is "Safe Boaters" going to try to have that petition (Eagle Island) repealed? Are they moving for a new hearing to set that one right?
Answer:What a weird person you are.


Question: Is "Safe Boaters" going to try to have that petition (Eagle Island) repealed? Are they moving for a new hearing to set that one right?
Answer: Is it honorable and OK for him to [B]break his promise and go back on his word not to post anymore


Question:Are you guys going to use the same passion to have your Eagle Island (Bourgeoious) NWZ repealed because it too was "put through under the radar"? I've asked this several times and you guys keep changing the topic and using red herring responses to name-call and turn the discussion into one about me. Just answer yes or no.

Answer:
And I'll see your true colors
shining through
I see your true colors
and that's why I love you
so don't be afraid to let them show
your true colors
true colors are beautiful
like a rainbow


Need I say more? That favor you guys did for Bourgeious after he gave all that money to your last version of this group, NHRBA, seems to be an embarrassing topic now, no? Working "under the radar" to get a personal NWZ in front of his house, in an area that had never had a problem and was far less of a safety concern than the BP, so that this contributor to the anti-SL group du jour could have peace and quiet when he was not out destroying everyone else's peace and quiet, is starting to look like it was a bad idea. "Let's not let him bring that up. Let's change the topic every time he mentions it. Let's pretend we had nothing to do with that. That was when we called ourselves NHRBA, but we call ourselves SBONH now, so let's deny we even remember doing that. Let's call him names and sing Cindy Lauper songs whenever he mentions it". Nice try.

[ApS]

“Obviously, there has been a death among the deities and APS, SOTD, TB, BI, El-C et. al. have been appointed to determine infallibly what is reasonable and civilized for us all, whether it be speed, horsepower, size or type of boat, no wake zones or whatever else annoys or disturbs them from time to time.”
I support those who won't use their boat to kill others. :rolleye1:

You've read many outright lies posted in these various threads, and made many a misstatement of your own.
An opportunity appeared on the previous page in which to address any "misstatements".

However, every one of SBONH-NHRBA's operatives overlooked that opportunity.

:rolleye2:

As I am for "equal-opportunity" at forums, I am compelled to repeat that previous phrase once again:

"As for myself, you have ten years of ApS posts in which to locate a statement that expresses a deliberate untruth."

That favor you guys did for Bourgeious after he gave all that money to your last version of this group, NHRBA, seems to be an embarrassing topic now, no? Working "under the radar" to get a personal NWZ in front of his house, in an area that had never had a problem and was far less of a safety concern than the BP, so that this contributor to the anti-SL group du jour could have peace and quiet when he was not out destroying everyone else's peace and quiet, is starting to look like it was a bad idea. "Let's not let him bring that up. Let's change the topic every time he mentions it. Let's pretend we had nothing to do with that. That was when we called ourselves NHRBA, but we call ourselves SBONH now...

If the below photo is the subject of the "peace and quiet of the personal NWZ at Eagle Island", I don't think we're currently discussing the right "Bourgeoious". :confused:

(Or "Bourgeious".) :confused:

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopost/data/502/medium/176June_at_Lake_05_093_2.jpg

[Bearislandmoose]

What happened?

I was asked to come back by one of your gang;

Wonder how .. El Chase ... will try to spin this success.

This was the final straw in a long line of taunts by those who had been unwilling to debate me when I was posting before, but saw my promise to abandon as an opportunity to take shots at me and keep dropping my name. My continued silence would have been risking the wrong impression. Interesting that this guy/gal Hammond (probably a fake name) had never engaged me before, and has not engaged me since. He is apparently the type who likes to kick a guy in handcuffs.

A combination of having lost my elchase password and the desire to start anew led me to create a new screen name..it was simply easier than asking for a new password, and it gave the opportunity to make that covert post and show OCD for who he really is. And I had gotten tired before of being the only person on this forum who was brave enough to post under his real name, and had regretted doing that once people from your side started "investigating" me and going back and forth to "make big wakes" in front of my home.

My problem had been with the editing of my posts by the moderator, the back-breaker being one on this very topic that was edited in a way that turned its intent completely around, causing others to think I was saying the exact opposite of what I had actually written. I did not want to continue posting under such uncertainty. But I was not aware that the moderator was going to start this unmoderated forum, and I feel this is exactly the kind of forum that a debate with the likes of your gang needs. We get to see how vulgar and primitive you all can be, and I get to express my thoughts without waiting three days for them to show up, and then find that they have been changed. I'm enjoying this much more than ever.

I do not consider this to be the forum that I swore out of...the moderated forum. Please know though that I will honor my pledge to remain out of that one...unless you guys taunt there too.

[fatlazyless]

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopost/data/502/medium/176June_at_Lake_05_093_2.jpg

As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words, and just look'n at this picture helps the casual observer to maybe understand why performance boating can get into one's blood, and be such a highly addictive fun-time hobby. The photo helps to answer the question: Why do some simply have 'the need for speed?'

[Bearislandmoose]

No, you said you were gone.

Did you read my post?...the same one you quoted?

Anyway...I'm back. And I've decided to stay around. I will stick to my promise to not darken the door of that other forum (the moderated one) anymore. But this one seems much more even-handed, and I don't feel that I have two hands tied behind my back anymore.

So you'll simply have to learn to deal with it. Sorry.

Ed

[ApS]

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopost/data/502/medium/176June_at_Lake_05_093_2.jpg

As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words, and just look'n at this picture helps the casual observer to maybe understand why performance boating can get into one's blood, and be such a highly addictive fun-time hobby. The photo helps to answer the question: Why do some simply have 'the need for speed?'
I can fully understand the "need for speed". :)

But I bothered to have the medical checkups, the training, the eyesight exams, the experience, the head-gear, the body-gear, the inspections, the organizational excellence, the exacting locations and the overwhelming safety considerations for those speeds—which in most cases didn't see the extreme speeds showcased on Winnipesaukee. :eek2: :(

Having "first-hand" observations of extreme speed on Lake Winnipesaukee is never what I had in mind. :rolleye1:

[gtagrip]

I can fully understand the "need for speed". :)

But I bothered to have the medical checkups, the training, the eyesight exams, the experience, the head-gear, the body-gear, the inspections, the organizational excellence, the exacting locations and the overwhelming safety considerations for those speeds—which in most cases didn't see the extreme speeds showcased on Winnipesaukee. :eek2: :(

Having "first-hand" observations of extreme speed on Lake Winnipesaukee is never what I had in mind. :rolleye1:

Looks to me that the obeserved speed is approx. 45mph.

[RI Swamp Yankee]

... Speed used to be king on Winni, .....You must have a short memory. How fast can you go with a 10 HP Johnson on a 12 foot boat?

[OCDACTIVE]

Safe Boaters of New Hampshire
“To promote safety through education and legislation that works”
http://www.SBONH.ORG

State orders hearing on the No Wake Zone at Lake Winnipesaukee’s “Barber Pole” reopened.

Safe Boaters of NH pushes bill to ensure proper notification of future hearings.


For Immediate Release:


The New Hampshire Department of Safety has reversed its earlier decision establishing the largest no wake zone on Lake Winnipesaukee and has ordered the process reopened.

The decision was made after a petition by residents of the area and Safe Boaters of New Hampshire questioned whether proper notification was given since most of the property owners in the area were unaware of the petition until after a ruling had been made, and whether the original petitioners met the legal requirements to file such a petition.

The Department of Safety ruled that the legal requirement may not have been met and has ordered the people calling for a no wake zone at Lake Winnipesaukee’s “Barber Pole” to show proof of residency. The department also ruled that proper legal notice was given via publication in the only statewide newspaper in New Hampshire.

Safe Boaters of New Hampshire believes that in the era of dwindling newspaper circulation and greater reliance on the internet and other forms of communication, the methods of legal notification accepted in the past are no longer adequate.

Safe Boaters of New Hampshire has filed a bill that would address the notification process when a petition to change or restrict the use of New Hampshire’s public waterways is being considered. The bill requires the petitioners to notify the abutters of the area being targeted by certified mail and requires the Department of Safety to post the notification of the petition on the department’s official website at least two weeks prior to the hearing.

Regardless of the outcome of the “Barber Pole” no wake zone issue Safe Boaters of New Hampshire firmly believes everyone affected should have an opportunity to know about the proposed changes prior to decisions being made.

[ronc4424]

No wake ruling reversed after questions raised about process

Staff Report


Monday, November 8, 2010
CONCORD — The state Department of Safety has reversed its earlier decision establishing the largest no wake zone on Lake Winnipesaukee and has ordered the process reopened.

The Department of Safety ruled that the legal requirement may not have been met and has ordered the people calling for a no wake zone at Lake Winnipesaukee's "Barber Pole" to show proof of residency. The department also ruled that proper legal notice was given via publication in the only statewide newspaper in New Hampshire.

The decision was made after a petition by residents of the area and Safe Boaters of New Hampshire questioned whether proper notification was given since most of the property owners in the area were unaware of the petition until after a ruling had been made, and whether the original petitioners met the legal requirements to file such a petition.

Safe Boaters of New Hampshire believes that in the era of dwindling newspaper circulation and greater reliance on the Internet and other forms of communication, the methods of legal notification accepted in the past are no longer adequate.

Safe Boaters of New Hampshire has filed a bill that would address the notification process when a petition to change or restrict the use of New Hampshire's public waterways is being considered. The bill requires the petitioners to notify the abutters of the area being targeted by certified mail and requires the Department of Safety to post the notification of the petition on the department's official website at least two weeks before the hearing.

Regardless of the outcome of the "Barber Pole" no wake zone issue Safe Boaters of New Hampshire firmly believes everyone affected should have an opportunity to know about the proposed changes before decisions being made.

[Geneva Point]

The Union Leader reported today that the state Department of Safety is re-examining its decision earlier this year to create a no-wake zone in the Barber's Pole area between Tuftonboro Neck and Cow Island. Does anyone have any more deals?

[OCDACTIVE]

The Union Leader reported today that the state Department of Safety is re-examining its decision earlier this year to create a no-wake zone in the Barber's Pole area between Tuftonboro Neck and Cow Island. Does anyone have any more deals?

Same press release as you see above.

The petitioners were not able to prove residency or property ownership.

The no wake zone has been overturned and hearing is now closed.

It is as if it never happened.

[BroadHopper]

I have mentioned before that the abbuters were upset over the ruling. Yet BIM beg to differ and disputed my claim.

[hazelnut]

The "real residents" of the area were 90% against the NWZ. We circulated a petition and out of the roughly 30 properties only 2 or 3 were in favor of the NWZ. Ironically these were the attendants of the original hearing.

This was a case of a couple of property owners who got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. They tried to sneak a hearing in and they almost got away with it. Back in the summer on the weekend of the original hearing one family told some people they were just having a family reunion when they were asked why they were at the house for the weekend. These are the Squirrel Island people that rent the house out all summer. They never mentioned to us that they were actually all there to attend a hearing on the NWZ.

The whole situation turns my stomach that these slimy people would try to pull such a sleazy move. I was more ticked off at the process than anything else. As I have said in the past the NWZ would have had some benefits for me personally. I win either way. Thank you SBONH for your support and for shining a light on situations like this where a select few try to dictate the use of a public resource.

[VtSteve]

Who owns this Squirrel Island? Maybe a poster here?

It's always nice when something is stopped for the right reasons. It seems that many people now want to pass legislation in the dark of night, and let as few people know about it as possible. Oh well, there are lots of devious people out there with nothing better to do. They hate the fact that somewhere out there, someone might be having a good time :eek:

Well kudos to those that sent them back to their dark caves. Always nice when people are thoughtful.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Who owns this Squirrel Island? Maybe a poster here?

It's always nice when something is stopped for the right reasons. It seems that many people now want to pass legislation in the dark of night, and let as few people know about it as possible. Oh well, there are lots of devious people out there with nothing better to do. They hate the fact that somewhere out there, someone might be having a good time :eek:

Well kudos to those that sent them back to their dark caves. Always nice when people are thoughtful.

I think it's becoming standing room only in these caves! More to follow, that's for sure.
Happy Veteran's Day :patriot:

[Turtle Boy]

Somehow I think SBONH's presence in this controversy will not help with their long term plans and agenda and they will regret their involvement. This article appears in today's Laconia Daily Sun.

Thanks to "safe" boaters, full throttle through Barber Pole is OK
Nov 17, 2010 12:00 am
To the editor,

The New Hampshire Department of Safety has reversed its earlier decision that had established a No Wake Zone in the narrow and often busy Barber's Pole channel of Lake Winnipesaukee, at the request of a group of boaters headed by a member of a performance boating club calling itself the "Active Thunder Cult".

The Department of Safety makes this reversal based on a technicality raised by this boating group, despite having earlier found that without the no-wake designation, present law "does not provide adequate safety" and that "No Wake speed along this route within Lake Winnipesaukee will improve public safety; maintenance of residential, recreational, and scenic values; variety of uses; and, environment and water quality."

Using the moniker "Safe Boaters of New Hampshire", the boating group, whose founder has stated a primary mission of having Lake Winnipesaukee's boating speed limit repealed, has arranged so that most boaters may again travel full throttle through the narrow 2-way channel, even after the Department of Safety had determined that "There is not sufficient availability and practicality of enforcement" to ensure safety in the channel absent no-wake speed limitations.

Ed Chase

Meredith

[NoRegrets]

Some look for the ugly in every situation. Amazing! :confused:

[rockythedog]

Turtle Boy, is that an article written by an unbiased journalist or the ravings of some wack-job in a letter to the editor? Do you even know the difference?

[ishoot308]

Turtle Boy, is that an article written by an unbiased journalist or the ravings of some wack-job in a letter to the editor? Do you even know the difference?

I would go with curtain # 2

Dan

[Turtle Boy]

For your reading pleasure, from today's LDS:D:

Letters
State has changed no-wake-zones to anything goes a number of times
Nov 18, 2010 12:00 am
To the editor,

Mr. Chase should be nominated for Safety Commissioner or perhaps Hearings Supervisor due to the fact that the present office holders are opening a can of worms that could go back as much as 50 plus years. They seem to think they can change their minds when someone squawks that they didn't have time to read the hearing notices in the only statewide newspaper and this malarkey about only residents can sign petitions but anybody in the entire state can file appeals against rulings is a drastic mis-interpretation.

Many lake users went to the appeals hearing in Tuftonboro but weren't allowed to speak unless we were appellants and yet we were told that we all own Lake Winnipesaukee. Something is drastically wrong with this picture. As a boater who uses the "Barber Pole" passage on occasion, I believe someone should get out the measuring stick; the channel is not wide enough to allow two vessels going in opposite, or the same, ways the 450-foot clearance to allow speeds up to 45-mph by the current law, nor does it allow PWC's the 600 foot clearance to exceed headway speeds. However we were not allowed to bring this information forward during the appeals hearing. There are many areas on the lake that don't allow these clearances and yet the Safety Department has changed them from "No-Wake-Zones" to do what ever you please zones a number of times. One that comes to mind is the passage in Glendale between Pig Island and Locke Island that for many years was a "No-Wake-Zone", at least from 1969 through the late 1970s and then one year it did not appear on the chart due to a typographical error so the Marine Patrol removed the NWZ indicators and now boats literally fly through the area defying the 150 foot separation requirement as well as the need to slow to headway speed. This area is just around the corner from Marine Patrol Headquarters.

We might ask who verified the signatures for residency that were supplied, by NH Recreational Boaters Association, on petitions for the Eagle Island NWZ that was put into place a year or three ago ? And why aren't Center Harbor and Wolfeboro bays as well protected with NWZ's as are Alton and Meredith bays ? If one of the Department of Safety responsibilities is to provide for the safety of all users of Lake Winnipesaukee when and how, other than college kids riding around in patrol boats, don't they address these issues rather than waiting for the populace to request some actions that are so glaringly obvious ?

Bill Bertholdt

[VtSteve]

It's called being Above Board. I would think that residents and property owners have the right to at least know what's going on behind their backs. I also find it very disingenuous for some to suggest (continually), that in this particular area of the lake, boaters do whatever they choose. You are not only inferring that the SL law and the Safe Passage rules are not working, but you're narrowing it down to this one area. All that after saying how wonderful the lake has been, and how safe it is, after the SL law's passage. Kind of a spin no?

As was clearly evident from the multitude of posts here, residents and other boaters of the BP area were studying the facts of the NWZ issue, and also debating it's pros and cons. That's the way things get done in civilized society. Sometimes it works well, other times maybe not so well. But it's out in the open, and people get their input. There were some pretty good suggestions and discussions overall. Sorry to see some people don't like open discussions.

I'd also like to add that SBONH, as they have stated many times, took no stance on the NWZ issue. They preferred to leave the discussion and debate up to the people it would impact the most. In other words, SBONH did not formulate a knee-jerk response. Good form. I say judge them for what they do, not by what people that use fictitious names in newspapers say.

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Regarding ALL the discussion that's been had in this thread and the two letters to the editor posted here, how can the BP NWZ not be wide enough for two boats to pass each other while maintaining the minimum 150' between both crafts and shore? Using Google Earth, I measured the width of that area; the minimum width I found, shore to shore, was 825 ft while other areas were greater than 900 ft. Two boats passing each other would need an absolute minimum of 450' to allow for distances between themselves and shore on either side. Even if you allow 500', that STILL leaves 300'+ to maintain distance from other boats and shore. What am I missing when so many people are saying it's too narrow?!?!?

Just for reference, the Eagle Island NWZ measured at 710' at it's narrowest, also using Google Earth. I can't tell you how many boats I've seen blowing through this one on plane; I've even caught the Doris E (or Sophie C, I don't remember which) buzzing through without slowing down!

Granted, I don't know how accurate (or inaccurate) Google Earth is when it comes to measuring but unless someone has strung a tape measure across or used surveying instruments, it's close enough for me!

[VtSteve]

You're not missing anything. Except for this one area on the lake, every-thing's just peachy :laugh:

[gtagrip]

Why is it that all are in agreement with what SBONH exposed this scam except 3 or 4 people in this forum. They tried to sneak a NWZ through the process and got called on it. I guess it's only the sneaks in this forum that are upset about it. :rolleye2:

[VtSteve]

I like those odds actually :D

The real people without an agenda were exposed to what those few folks stand for. Hazelnut and others sought to be inclusionary, and not make reactionary statements pro or con on this issue. HN was also very concerned that the people that lived there were not informed. Pretty much period.

I had some people (nobody that's posted on the NWZ threads), ask me privately what I thought of people gushing with sheer delight over the SL issue and how well it's worked, yet when speaking of the BP area, it seems like mass chaos and ultra high speed. I did not once state the obvious.

They figured it out themselves. The bottom line is this. As a group, there can, and will be, disagreements over many things. But the vast majority of us try to discuss things out in the open, whether we agree with one side or the other. In this case, there were mixed results over actual NWZ. But there were only the same few that didn't think the methods or means used were pretty sneaky.

So some folks decided it was time to let everyone in on this little secret. I think the majority of people in this forum got a real eye-opener from these disclosures.

[Seaplane Pilot]

For your reading pleasure, from today's LDS:D:

Letters
State has changed no-wake-zones to anything goes a number of times
Nov 18, 2010 12:00 am
To the editor,

Mr. Chase should be nominated for Safety Commissioner or perhaps Hearings Supervisor due to the fact that the present office holders are opening a can of worms that could go back as much as 50 plus years. They seem to think they can change their minds when someone squawks that they didn't have time to read the hearing notices in the only statewide newspaper and this malarkey about only residents can sign petitions but anybody in the entire state can file appeals against rulings is a drastic mis-interpretation.

Many lake users went to the appeals hearing in Tuftonboro but weren't allowed to speak unless we were appellants and yet we were told that we all own Lake Winnipesaukee. Something is drastically wrong with this picture. As a boater who uses the "Barber Pole" passage on occasion, I believe someone should get out the measuring stick; the channel is not wide enough to allow two vessels going in opposite, or the same, ways the 450-foot clearance to allow speeds up to 45-mph by the current law, nor does it allow PWC's the 600 foot clearance to exceed headway speeds. However we were not allowed to bring this information forward during the appeals hearing. There are many areas on the lake that don't allow these clearances and yet the Safety Department has changed them from "No-Wake-Zones" to do what ever you please zones a number of times. One that comes to mind is the passage in Glendale between Pig Island and Locke Island that for many years was a "No-Wake-Zone", at least from 1969 through the late 1970s and then one year it did not appear on the chart due to a typographical error so the Marine Patrol removed the NWZ indicators and now boats literally fly through the area defying the 150 foot separation requirement as well as the need to slow to headway speed. This area is just around the corner from Marine Patrol Headquarters.

We might ask who verified the signatures for residency that were supplied, by NH Recreational Boaters Association, on petitions for the Eagle Island NWZ that was put into place a year or three ago ? And why aren't Center Harbor and Wolfeboro bays as well protected with NWZ's as are Alton and Meredith bays ? If one of the Department of Safety responsibilities is to provide for the safety of all users of Lake Winnipesaukee when and how, other than college kids riding around in patrol boats, don't they address these issues rather than waiting for the populace to request some actions that are so glaringly obvious ?

Bill Bertholdt

Perhaps he should also take over Fish & Game Department. Then he could restrict or outlaw hunting as well, seeing how "dangerous" this activity really is. Someone please pass the Rolaids.....I'm ready to puke. :eek:

[BroadHopper]

Where's the Barber's Pole? What happened to it? Did the NWZ supporters hold it for ransom? :confused:

[jmen24]

It's like playing tag on the playground with the kids that only want to play if they can control the rules and make it so they always have a safe zone within arms reach, but it is only for them.

Pretty soon they are talking to themselves in the corner of the playground, shouting random comments at others if they walk by to close.

The problem is those kids have grown up to be equally as annoying as adults and they have not changed a bit. Sad really.

Get involved and stay involved, it is your right and should be taken seriously. I have a feeling that we are going to start hearing more and more about folks standing up to the weak minded folks that want the rules spun in their favor. Secretly that is, wouldn't want to deal with an opposing view, that is NOT FAAAIIIIRRRR.

[VtSteve]

Well said Jmen. There are those that know the only way they can get their way is by cheating or under cover of darkness. They really don't like it when you turn the spotlight on them. I like the fact that so many turned on their spotlights all at once.

They said NOT FAAAIIIIRRRR, then called people nasty names and wrote nasty little letters. Then they go back into the corner. Perhaps they will learn how not to combine their conflicting fabrications in the same thread.

[gtagrip]

Summer 2009 = lake wide Shang-gri-la as many posted it was the best
summer ever.

Summer 2010 = High speed craziness in the Barber's Pole area and the 150'
rule is violated constantly.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm! :rolleye2::emb:

[Turtle Boy]

Why is it that all are in agreement with what SBONH exposed this scam except 3 or 4 people in this forum.

Why is it that the GFBL crowd feels/says they are the oppressed majority when most people polled in NH and a majority of our state legislature were in favor of a SL?

Why is it that some people feel jeans and sweatshirts are appropriate attire when appearing before a legislative body in Concord?

.......The answer my friend is blowin' in the wind.........


I suspect the people in the BP will indeed get their NWZ. Having spoken with some of the people involved, it seems that in previous attempts virtually everyone on the mainland side of the BP, people on Squirrel and Little Birch Islands, and many people along the BP shore of Cow Is. including many of HN's neighbors and +/-? even the former owner of his house signed in favor of the NWZ. This varies significantly with HN's version of only 3 people in the BP being in favor. I think some of the people on this forum need to read the previously printed (on this forum) emails to the DOS by residents of the BP as to why they felt the NWZ was needed. The DOS agreed. I wouldn't be surprised to see the DOS eventually institute this NWZ by administrative rule, similar to how a SL was instituted on Squam. People are indeed starting to take back the lake from a crowd hanging in the shadows who claim they are a majority but are clearly not.

[fatlazyless]

"New Hampshire's procedure for declaring a 'no wake' zone under scrutiny after reversal of 'Barber Pole' decision" is the title of a front page article in today's Nov 20 www.laconiadailysun.com

[Ryan]

"New Hampshire's procedure for declaring a 'no wake' zone under scrutiny after reversal of 'Barber Pole' decision" is the title of a front page article in today's Nov 20 www.laconiadailysun.com

You mean this isn't an anonymous op-ed piece written under an alias riddled with lies and spin, but an actual article, complete with facts and stuff?

Get out!

[fatlazyless]

Michael Kitch, a reporter for the LaDaSun wrote it, and he writes lots of articles or reports on local town meetings, and in learning journalism, journalism students try to learn the difference between reporting and editorializing, if such a thing is even possible.

To read it like a printed paper newspaper, go to "new LaDaSun format" last message - message #16 for a working link which turns the LaDaSun back into its' old style.

[Yankee]

Why is it that the GFBL crowd feels/says they are the oppressed majority when most people polled in NH and a majority of our state legislature were in favor of a SL?

Why is it that some people feel jeans and sweatshirts are appropriate attire when appearing before a legislative body in Concord?

.......The answer my friend is blowin' in the wind.........


I suspect the people in the BP will indeed get their NWZ. Having spoken with some of the people involved, it seems that in previous attempts virtually everyone on the mainland side of the BP, people on Squirrel and Little Birch Islands, and many people along the BP shore of Cow Is. including many of HN's neighbors and +/-? even the former owner of his house signed in favor of the NWZ. This varies significantly with HN's version of only 3 people in the BP being in favor. I think some of the people on this forum need to read the previously printed (on this forum) emails to the DOS by residents of the BP as to why they felt the NWZ was needed. The DOS agreed. I wouldn't be surprised to see the DOS eventually institute this NWZ by administrative rule, similar to how a SL was instituted on Squam. People are indeed starting to take back the lake from a crowd hanging in the shadows who claim they are a majority but are clearly not.

Why is it that you and others of your ilk conveniently fail to admit that SBONH has only questioned the legality of the process regarding the establishment of the BP NWZ the rather than the result? If indeed "virtually" all (who can claim legal residency--a fact that you conveniently leave out!) in the area of the BP are in favor of a NWZ, then let them participate in and abide with the decision of the Tuftonboro authorities.

The fact that the BP NWZ was not established in a manner consisitent with the rules and regulations of the town of Tuftonboro apparently does not matter to you as long as the ends justify the means. The fact that you remain silent on the surrepticious, disingenuous, and unscrupulous manner in which the BP NWZ was initially established is abhorring.

It is occasions such as this that are the basis for the contempt and loathing that NH natives and residents express towards individuals such as you, as I am doing now.

[VtSteve]

You have them pegged pretty well Yankee. They lurk, they smirk, they slither around behind people's backs to get their dirty deeds done. They avoid any and all discussion of facts.

Everyone knows the persona that has stated, many times, that Winni was an absolute boater's paradise last year and this year. He said it was because of the SL. Out of the blue, after slithering around behind people's backs, they come up with a NWZ at the BP.

This very same person states (as they all do now), that it's Full Throttle and anything goes in that area. Nobody's heard that before, not until after the NWZ issue blew up in their collective faces.

So how can it be true that everything's ok but the BP area is crazy fast? Well it can't be. They know that, so when pressed, they make a few snarky comments directed at the MP about lack of enforcement and move on.

The only thing dangerous about this little group of nasty men is their deranged ideas. One of them even stated a preference for having the lake be a large NWZ, as he enjoys that boating the best. But once they found out that the people they hate the most might even discuss civilly the NWZ issue, they got even madder. They had to make it appear that these people drove boats at 200 mph through there. In fact, some suggested it Might be a good idea, and wanted to bring everyone in on it.

The gang of grumpy old men would have nothing to do with this. They slithered behind everyone's backs and passed a ridiculous law before everyone woke up. Fact si, they are pathological, never, ever to be trusted. Their motives are about an insincere as any I've head or read about. They'd make DC politicians blush. The only thing they're upset about is that they were found out.

If you want to really tick them off and send them packing, just keep spreading the truth.

[hazelnut]

Why is it that the GFBL crowd feels/says they are the oppressed majority when most people polled in NH and a majority of our state legislature were in favor of a SL?

Why is it that some people feel jeans and sweatshirts are appropriate attire when appearing before a legislative body in Concord?

.......The answer my friend is blowin' in the wind.........


I suspect the people in the BP will indeed get their NWZ. Having spoken with some of the people involved, it seems that in previous attempts virtually everyone on the mainland side of the BP, people on Squirrel and Little Birch Islands, and many people along the BP shore of Cow Is. including many of HN's neighbors and +/-? even the former owner of his house signed in favor of the NWZ. This varies significantly with HN's version of only 3 people in the BP being in favor. I think some of the people on this forum need to read the previously printed (on this forum) emails to the DOS by residents of the BP as to why they felt the NWZ was needed. The DOS agreed. I wouldn't be surprised to see the DOS eventually institute this NWZ by administrative rule, similar to how a SL was instituted on Squam. People are indeed starting to take back the lake from a crowd hanging in the shadows who claim they are a majority but are clearly not.

I've never in my life read bigger LIES in a post. This entire post is a lie. The former owner of my house is dead. So unless you dug him up and used your hand to guide his signature you are telling lies.


Now for some levity:

Enjoy this one TB: :laugh::laugh::laugh:

http://www2.laconiadailysun.com/story/barber-pole

New Hampshire's procedure for declaring a 'no wake' zone under scrutiny after 'Barber Pole' decision
By Michael Kitch
Nov 20, 2010 12:00 am

TUFTONBORO — The New Hampshire Department of Safety last week rescinded its decision declaring the Barber's Pole, the passage between Cow Island and the mainland, a "no wake zone" after representatives of Safe Boater of New Hampshire successfully challenged the legitimacy of the petition prompting the initial declaration.

State law (RSA 270:12) prescribes the procedure by which the commissioner of safety may place operating restrictions, including limits on the maximum horsepower or speed of boats, on lakes, ponds and rivers. The statute provides that at least 25 residents or property owners of each municipality bordering the water body may petition the commissioner, who after holding a public hearing may adopt rules to impose restrictions found to serve the public interest. Altogether restrictions have been imposed on more than 50 lakes and ponds, all identified in state law (RSA-270:76-132), through this process.

In May, the commissioner received a petition to impose a "no wake zone" on the so-called Barber's Pole strait. A hearing was held on July 21 and on July 30 Commissioner of Safety John Barthelmes issued an order declaring Barber's Pole, a stretch of water about twice the length of the Weirs Channel, a "no wake zone."

Many property owners on both Cow Island and the mainland were stunned and surprised by the decision, since they were not aware that a petition had been filed and a public hearing held. Noting the relatively low volume of boat traffic and number of boating mishaps, they questioned the need for a 'no wake zone," which the Marine Patrol has rejected in the past. They claimed that islanders who commute daily and weekly would be adversely affected by the "no wake zone," which one person said stretched the time to traverse the channel to 17 minutes.

Eleven residents, including Scott Verdock, the president, and Bob Flannery, the political director, of Safe Boaters of New Hampshire, appealed to reopen the hearing, claiming that the Department of Safety failed to properly notice the public hearing and the petitioners failed to qualify as either residents or property owners of Tuftonboro.

Verdonck stressed yesterday that his organization, which formed to oppose legislation setting speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee, was neither for or against the "no wake zone." Instead, he said that his membership was troubled that interested parties were not informed that a change in the operating protocols on the lake was being contemplated and that the credentials of the petitioners were apparently not verified.

"One of our members polled 58 residents of Barber's Poll and found only two who favored a 'no wake zone,'" Verdonck said. "We took no position either way. But, changes in the use of public waters should not be done under a shroud of secrecy. All the residents should be given an opportunity to participate in the decision."

The appeal was heard on October 1. The commissioner ruled that by posting a legal notice announcing the public hearing in the N.H. Union-Leader, a newspaper circulated throughout the state, the department met its obligation to provide public notification. He noted that the notice should not only be provided to residents or property owners but to all residents of the state, which has traditionaly be done by placing a notice in a statewide newspaper.

Verdonck disagrees and has asked Representative John Hikel (R-Goffstown) to file legislation requiring the petitioners to notify all abutters of the forthcoming hearing by certified mail. The process, he said, is akin to the procedure followed by local planning boards and by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services when chemical herbicides are applied to treat milfoil in lakes and ponds.

However, the commissioner found that the original petitioners failed to provide adequate proof that the signatories were either legal residents or property owners of Tuftonboro. Barthelmes instructed the petitioners to provide him with the necessary documentation within 30 days. According to Verdonck, they have failed to do so.

[hazelnut]

Furthermore all of the residents in the Barbers Pole channel on Cow Island OPPOSED THE NWZ. FACT not OPINION. These are my friends and my neighbors and many of them signed the petition opposed the NWZ. FACT not OPINION Sorry TB. FYI- The number of houses that directly abut the channel on the Cow Island side are 7 total homes one vacant lot with a dock.

[Turtle Boy]

I've never in my life read bigger LIES in a post. This entire post is a lie. The former owner of my house is dead. So unless you dug him up and used your hand to guide his signature you are telling lies.




A quick call to one who was involved reveals 5 of HN's neighbors who signed a petition during a previous attempt for the NWZ. I sent their names to him by PM...not sure if any of these 5 were the previous owners of his house. Dead people can indeed not sign but they can sign while alive and then be allowed to die. Interesting article today. Seventeen minutes to pass through the 1200' or so proposed NWZ? I could swim it faster than that! HN found only 2 people pro NWZ? Perhaps he needs to read the testimony of the many people who sent their opinions after the July hearing which include their locations as well. Also read the names of people of the BP who signed in as pro NWZ in July. What a joke....two people in favor of the NWZ. And you talk of slimy people in their caves. "I see your true colors shining through" to use your previous Cyndi Lauper quote.

[Seaplane Pilot]

TB,

Since we are referencing music (your reference to Cyndi Lauper), here's one for you and your friends at WINFABS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__VQX2Xn7tI

It has such a nice ring to it. I think it should be the SOBNH theme song!

Take it to the bank.

SP

[VtSteve]

I've never in my life read bigger LIES in a post. This entire post is a lie. The former owner of my house is dead. So unless you dug him up and used your hand to guide his signature you are telling lies.




And there it is again, yet another in a long series of lies (hence the term Pathalogical), from Turtle Boy himself.

Him and his gang of three must have a fairly weak case (obviously), to have to resort to lies all of the time. Somehow, they got a group of renters on an island to sign petitions in the dark of night, and sneak it on through.

The very same way they were pretty slick in getting signatures from Nashua and on up for a lake speed limit non boaters knew nothing about. They were so fearful of the truth, that they got the legislature to make the SL permanent before any facts or figures could be released. Wonder why that was?

I sincerely hope that those that don;t particularly like this form of "discussion", at least read through these threads. Perhaps after all this time, you can better judge what the uproar was really about.

Don't forget, this is not a dead issue. TB and his gang, like Ed/BIM/Warren will make sure that they continue to fabricate stories for each and every new law they want. So while the lake was sheer pleasure this year and last (except in the BP area), it might just be a hazard where anything goes according to this group tomorrow, or next May.

Wait until they start pushing for a special Lake Winnipesaukee Association patrol. One that adheres to the wishes of people that let them in power. Trust me, it's been done before elsewhere. Anyone that trusts any of these people is not rational.

And to TB. You've told more lies on this forum than anyone I've ever even heard of, much less witnessed. But what the heck, this is the internet, and you can say whatever. But the rantings of the little gang of friends across from BI go way beyond speed limits and a NWZ. These people are absolutely nuts about lots of things.

As for your latest rant? Don't forget, HN stated many times a NWZ was good for him personally. I know you've never commented to him on that, because to do so, would be civil.

[Yankee]

A quick call to one who was involved reveals 5 of HN's neighbors who signed a petition during a previous attempt for the NWZ. I sent their names to him by PM...not sure if any of these 5 were the previous owners of his house. Dead people can indeed not sign but they can sign while alive and then be allowed to die. Interesting article today. Seventeen minutes to pass through the 1200' or so proposed NWZ? I could swim it faster than that! HN found only 2 people pro NWZ? Perhaps he needs to read the testimony of the many people who sent their opinions after the July hearing which include their locations as well. Also read the names of people of the BP who signed in as pro NWZ in July. What a joke....two people in favor of the NWZ. And you talk of slimy people in their caves. "I see your true colors shining through" to use your previous Cyndi Lauper quote.

So 1 call to some unknown informant illicits the "fact" that there were or are 5 "neighbors" of HN who were in favor of the NWZ? And just how do you have access to this petition? This is nonsense.

Furthermore, please do not take offense of no one believes you that "many people" sent their opinions after the hearing...unless you provide some proof. Remember tourists and non-residents do not count.

While I am at it, what is your opinion of how the BP NWZ was enacted? From your responses in this thread you apparently have no problem with the FACT that the people who SIGNED the petition were just visiting, do not own property and are not residents of the Town of Tuftonboro. Are you are OK with the FACT that it was snuck through the system in an underhanded way?

http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/userpics/10172/smiley-face-popcorn.gif (http://www.smileyvault.com/)

[Turtle Boy]

So 1 call to some unknown informant illicits the "fact" that there were or are 5 "neighbors" of HN who were in favor of the NWZ? And just how do you have access to this petition? This is nonsense.



Let's hear from HN. I suspect he is calling these 5 neighbors and may be surprised at what he hears. It's nice to see his lies exposed.
And did VtSteve just mention Nashua? Yeah thats a long way from the lake...but not as far as the SBONH signatures from all over the country and China. My favorites were Erica Blizzard's and Jimmy Hoffa's. Yup, signatures from all over the country...that's real honesty for you. Only two people in favor of the NWZ? This story gets better and better.
BTW, these 2 letters in the LDS this week go a long way at shining some sunlight into your cave. Will there be more? I would bet that in the not too distant future, SBONH's "friends"...Forsythe, Boutin, Hickel...will drop SBONH like a hot potato.

[Yankee]

Let's hear from HN.

No, let's hear it from you. I directly asked you the question. You are the one you are the one who's claiming it to be true, yet tell us nothing in anyway to substantiate it.

Again, what is your opinion of how the BP NWZ was enacted?

http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/userpics/11655/eatpopcorn.gif (http://www.smileyvault.com/)

[hazelnut]

Let's hear from HN. I suspect he is calling these 5 neighbors and may be surprised at what he hears. It's nice to see his lies exposed.
And did VtSteve just mention Nashua? Yeah thats a long way from the lake...but not as far as the SBONH signatures from all over the country and China. My favorites were Erica Blizzard's and Jimmy Hoffa's. Yup, signatures from all over the country...that's real honesty for you. Only two people in favor of the NWZ? This story gets better and better.
BTW, these 2 letters in the LDS this week go a long way at shining some sunlight into your cave. Will there be more? I would bet that in the not too distant future, SBONH's "friends"...Forsythe, Boutin, Hickel...will drop SBONH like a hot potato.

This is AWESOME! Yes TB did PM me and get this, the 5 people he mentions are either DEAD or have since sold, one he mentions is JTA in this thread (maybe the other BP thread) go check out his post. So TB how's it feel to have egg on your face? Remember I live there TB they ARE my friends my CLOSE friends and yes they ARE opposed to a NWZ. Nice try though. I'm done talking to you on this subject as all you do is lie and now that everybody has concrete proof I'll let you climb back into your shell and hang on to whatever dignity you have left.

Here is how it breaks down, TB referenced 5 property owners
#1 is dead I own that house now
#2 sold and the lot was divided into two lots BOTH signed AGAINST NWZ
#3 Is a poster in this thread JTA go read his position where he says NO NWZ is needed.
#4 Sold and moved to a Condo in Gilford new owner is against NWZ
#5 has not been to the island in 8-10 years.

hahahahaha No phone call needed buddy but your records are WAY out of date. Maybe those folks supported a NWZ back in the day but most of them are long gone from Cow Island.

Good try but once again you only show..

"You with the sad eyes
don't be discouraged
oh I realize
it's hard to take courage
in a world full of people
you can lose sight of it all
and the darkness inside you
can make you fell so small

But I see your true colors
shining through
I see your true colors
and that's why I love you
so don't be afraid to let them show
your true colors
true colors are beautiful
like a rainbow "

[Turtle Boy]

A quick call to one who was involved reveals 5 of HN's neighbors who signed a petition during a previous attempt for the NWZ.

Exactly as I said...5 of your neighbors were in favor of a NWZ. Not quite so black and white as you might lead one to believe. And how about people on the small islands and mainland. Two people in favor of a NWZ? ha ha ha ha .
Then again, aren't you the one who went to bars and arcades and was not able to find a single person in favor of the SL? Your abilities for deception and lies know no bounds. You have no shame. True colors indeed.

[hazelnut]

Exactly as I said...5 of your neighbors were in favor of a NWZ. Not quite so black and white as you might lead one to believe. And how about people on the small islands and mainland. Two people in favor of a NWZ? ha ha ha ha .
Then again, aren't you the one who went to bars and arcades and was not able to find a single person in favor of the SL? Your abilities for deception and lies know no bounds. You have no shame. True colors indeed.

Nice try with the misdirection but... :laugh: You look foolish. Our petition has 98% of the abutters signing AGAINST the NWZ. The CURRENT proposal. I am so done engaging a person who out and out lies and then can not apologize when he is caught lying. It is BLACK AND WHITE 100% Black and white. The CURRENT property owners in the Barbers Pole channel overwhelmingly DO NOT support a NWZ in the area. What is so hard for you to comprehend? So you want to reference dead people and former property owners in your argument? :laugh: Ok... :confused:

[Yankee]

I see dead people and others who no longer live here...they demand a no wake zone at the Barber Pole channel. :laugh::laugh:

[VtSteve]

So whats ya gonna do now TB? Punt? Call the other two and have a consult?

It doesn't sound to me like HN was surprised by what he heard. It sounds to me like you've dished out some bald-faced lies, just like you and yours did during the SL debate. I'm beginning to wonder if any three people could possibly be so dishonest in real life? Only paid lobbyists that I know of can do this with a straight face.

[hazelnut]

So whats ya gonna do now TB? Punt? Call the other two and have a consult?

It doesn't sound to me like HN was surprised by what he heard. It sounds to me like you've dished out some bald-faced lies, just like you and yours did during the SL debate. I'm beginning to wonder if any three people could possibly be so dishonest in real life? Only paid lobbyists that I know of can do this with a straight face.

Not surprised at all. All of us Islanders are a very close knit bunch. We have campfires at each others houses. We share resources, the very nature of living on an island dictates we do so. We spend a considerable amount of time together. We are all very close, this is not your average "neighbor I only see and wave at once in a while." Mainland folk would be surprised just how close island neighbors are with each other. So while TB who lives on the other side of the lake pretends he knows my neighbors better than me, we can all laugh at him. :laugh: The reality is that on the island we spend a substantial amount of time at each others houses. We all walk through each others properties to go visit other neighbors. Rarely can you make it through a neighbors property without being invited in for a chat or a snack or drink. It is a completely different way of life. I love it and it has been amazing. With that said we all have spent a considerable amount of time this summer discussing the pro's and con's of this NWZ. While we all agreed that there would be many, MANY benefits to this proposed NWZ we as a group wholeheartedly agreed that the negatives outweighed the positives. We also were all disgusted by the process with which this was enacted. It was in our collective opinion that we could not support a law like this that had absolutely no basis with regard to safety. There is and was no safety issue. It was merely going to be a self serving initiative and we all agreed that we couldn't support it. Now let me tell you that this is pretty amazing due to the varied political viewpoints my neighbors and I have. One of my neighbors is a supporter of the SL. I still love the guy. :D While we agree to disagree on that one we have shared many a campfire and we have discussed our completely different perspectives on all things politics, the one thing we both agree on is that this NWZ proposal was a joke and is not necessary.
We are all happy to see that the process has worked for once. We owe a great debt of gratitude to all that came out and especially SBONH for their support.

[ApS]

Regarding ALL the discussion that's been had in this thread and the two letters to the editor posted here, how can the BP NWZ not be wide enough for two boats to pass each other while maintaining the minimum 150' between both crafts and shore? Using Google Earth, I measured the width of that area; the minimum width I found, shore to shore, was 825 ft while other areas were greater than 900 ft. Two boats passing each other would need an absolute minimum of 450' to allow for distances between themselves and shore on either side. Even if you allow 500', that STILL leaves 300'+ to maintain distance from other boats and shore. What am I missing when so many people are saying it's too narrow?!?!?
Nobody from SBONH-NHRBA will advise this BP visitor? :(

Why is it that all are in agreement with what SBONH exposed this scam except 3 or 4 people in this forum. They tried to sneak a NWZ through the process and got called on it. I guess it's only the sneaks in this forum that are upset about it. :rolleye2:
1) As I am scarcely benefited by the NWZ—and had nothing to do with it in any of its four proposals—please leave out the insinuation that ApS is part of this proposal. :cool:

2) However, having lingered at the BP in a small boat, I can now readily support BP residents regarding this "Visitor-Abuse" issue.

3) BTW: Who will go "on record", saying:
"There will NEVER be a NWZ at Barber Pole!" :eek2:

[Yankee]

Once again I have tried and failed to translate Acre Per Second's parsi. Can anyone help me to understand what the he11 he is talking about?

[hazelnut]

I'll tell ya what, I will let you in on a little secret:

http://www.quicktopic.com/18/H/2DcQnXwaD2qL

Knock yourself out TB and read that. It's the COW ISLAND FORUM. Yup that's the place where MY NEIGHBORS and I discuss all things Cow Island. All those folks posting on there are the real LIVING residents and current property owners. You'll have to dig through all the day to day minutia of Island life (forum is not threaded) but the discussion about the NWZ is in there. ;)

Enjoy the reading. :laugh:

[VtSteve]

It sounds like some very real constraints are needed for the Sophie C.

It also sounds like we need a version of Snopes.com dedicated to debunking the posts of the usual gang. If TB tells me it's a sunny day, I'm Still going to look outside and see for myself :emb:

From Hazelnut

Our petition has 98% of the abutters signing AGAINST the NWZ

Keep your guard up. TB and the boys will be trying to get petitions signed in Nashua and Manchester again.

"Boats as large as 200' pass through a narrow passage at speeds up to 400 mph. Do you agree that this area, where you can reach across the channel and shake hands with island people, should be a NWZ."

In another petition;

"The lake was as wonderful as it had been when the Indians paddled their canoes 400 years ago (except the BP area, where boats go faster than the speed of light). Do you agree that all boats should, by law, go no faster than 6 mph on Lake Winnipesaukee? The speed limit passed should be made permanent, before any of you know what the outcome is."

:emb::emb::emb::laugh::laugh::laugh::)

[Turtle Boy]

I'll tell ya what, I will let you in on a little secret:

http://www.quicktopic.com/18/H/2DcQnXwaD2qL

Knock yourself out TB and read that. It's the COW ISLAND FORUM. Yup that's the place where MY NEIGHBORS and I discuss all things Cow Island. All those folks posting on there are the real LIVING residents and current property owners. You'll have to dig through all the day to day minutia of Island life (forum is not threaded) but the discussion about the NWZ is in there. ;)

Enjoy the reading. :laugh:

And click the attachment on post #70 of this thread(knock yourself out HN) if you want to hear from some other islanders and mainland residents who live on the BP (didn't hear from any renters though). Your neighbors on Squirrel and Little Birch must love you...nothing like neighborly relations.:laugh::laugh:

[VtSteve]

Those comments were discussed in depth earlier on TB. I think it's been pointed out that it's very hard to talk to the neighbors on squirrel.

Since you don't care to discuss your earlier "revelations", we can only assume most of what you guys come up with is a steaming pile. You've been proven to be "somewhat" disingenuous? Hazelnut seems to be pretty current, and quite active in the real world there. Thank goodness there are still people left that actually care about the truth. You do not appear to be one of them TB, and now everyone knows that.

But please, continue to tell us stories about all of your friends in the BP area, maybe we could do something about the Sophie C while we're at it.

[hazelnut]

Steve drop it. It's not worth it. TB is grasping at straws. He obviously doesn't read anything thoroughly. If he did he would already know that the Squirrel Islanders are transient. The house is rented 100% of the summer. But thems are facts and facts don't matter to good ole Turtle Boy. Hahahaha

[Turtle Boy]

Steve drop it. It's not worth it. TB is grasping at straws. He obviously doesn't read anything thoroughly. If he did he would already know that the Squirrel Islanders are transient. The house is rented 100% of the summer. But thems are facts and facts don't matter to good ole Turtle Boy. Hahahaha

Hmmmm...just reread the testimony from the link on post #70 of this thread. Many people, well over 20, describe themselves as owners or co-owners, people like the Phillips, Lights, Kirby's , Wolcotts, Boris', Hilbink's, Fernalds, Brown's....but thems are facts and facts don't matter to good ole VtSteve and HN. Maybe these people are all liars as well as owners.:laugh:Oh yeah, only 2 people in favor of the NWZ. I hope some of the people in the BP point this out to the person writing the LDS article. It would show a bit more sunlight into your caves, similar to that shown last week with the 2 letters to the editor.

[hazelnut]

Does anyone else want to take this and spell out the obvious? I'll get it started. TB what was the reason given by the state that the original hearing was deemed invalid? I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count. Hahahaha.

[Yankee]

Beat me to it Hazelnut!

[Turtle Boy]

Does anyone else want to take this and spell out the obvious? I'll get it started. TB what was the reason given by the state that the original hearing was deemed invalid? I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count. Hahahaha.

So, 20 plus people in favor of a NWZ. But thems are facts and facts don't matter to good ole HN. Tell me again how only 2 people were in favor of the NWZ. hahahaha

We got our SL...you need to get over it...you really are a nasty and denigrating person as has been pointed out in the past; hope they get their NWZ...their testimony is compelling and it seems inevitable they will eventually prevail.

[Yankee]

So, 20 plus people in favor of a NWZ. But thems are facts and facts don't matter to good ole HN. Tell me again how only 2 people were in favor of the NWZ. hahahaha

We got our SL...you need to get over it...you really are a nasty and denigrating person as has been pointed out in the past; hope they get their NWZ...their testimony is compelling and it seems inevitable they will eventually prevail.

Apparently the obvious needs to be stated. The petition that you are refering was rejected outright:

Requoting OCD in post# 220:

"the Original Petition fails to provide the requisite number of signatures with supporting proof that the co petitioners are either residents or property owners pursuant to RSA 270:12,I. Based upon my response within section IV, (sub. 3), the Appellants Motion to Reopen pursuant to RSA 541:3 are granted.

The original petitioners must provide proof that a minium number of the original 25 co-petitioners listed in the original document are residents or property owners in Tuftonboro by use of official town record.

Since many petitioners are of the same family / property this will be impossible to do."

This is yet another in a LONG line of your lame attempts to intentionally and feebly misdirect the truth. Why do you keep digging the hole that you're in deeper?

[hazelnut]

Thanks Yankee, apparently reading is not TB's forte. Hahahaha

[Yankee]

No problem Hazelnut. When people such as ReptileBoy promote circumvention of the laws in this state/country for their own selfish interests it really, really pisses me off!

And no, ReptileBoy I am not a member nor do I know anyone associated with SBONH.

[VtSteve]

So, 20 plus people in favor of a NWZ. But thems are facts and facts don't matter to good ole HN. Tell me again how only 2 people were in favor of the NWZ. hahahaha

We got our SL...you need to get over it...you really are a nasty and denigrating person as has been pointed out in the past; hope they get their NWZ...their testimony is compelling and it seems inevitable they will eventually prevail.

Wow!



STATISTICS:

On July 21, 2010, three (3) persons testified and twelve (12)
persons signed to record themselves in support of the petition. One (1)
person testified, and one (1) person signed to not speak, but be
recorded against the petition. Hon. John A. Veazey, State
Representative provided a history of the area known as Barber’s Pole.
Prior to and/or after the hearing, fifty-seven (57) people sent via mail,
e-mail or facsimile public commentary. The hearing was closed to public
comment at the conclusion of the business day on Friday, July 23, 2010.



Sounds like a tidal wave of support there TB.

Was Mr. Phillips the Coach? He was my favorite. He sounded eloquent enough to be Warren Clark. You guys must have been planning this since you first came across some old filings.

TB, you really should pass this off to WC, he's a much better liar than you are, lot's smoother as well. One thing to consider. Right here on this forum, you and others, have completely contradicted your prior statements about how wonderful and peaceful the lake has been, For Two Years Now.!!!

Everyone's keeping track at this point, because sure as there's an idiot missing from someone's village, you guys will come out with some outlandish (and contradictory) story for next year's misery.

[gtagrip]

Still waiting for TB to answer the question poised by Yankee. But since the silence is so defining, I think we all know the answer. :rolleye2:

Acres, yes, I do consider you to be in the 3 or 4. :emb:

[Kracken]

There is one member who has been outed and proven to be deceitful.
(posting under multiple names – caught)

There is another member who has been caught in multiple lies.
(talking to dead people-caught)

There is a third member that is completely incoherent.
(We shall see:laugh::laugh::laugh: prove it :( speeders and kayaks:confused::eek::cool: )

Why are we wasting our time debating with deceitful, lying and incoherent people?

[Turtle Boy]

Well VtSteve (and hn)...you won...you have driven me off the forum for good. Your angry, degrading, and intimidating replies are one thing, but having received a PM with this link below showing your collection of assault weapons and warning me I should keep quiet for my own good was the last straw. Another notch in your belt for having driven another SL supporter off the forum. A founding member of SBONH...you are looking real good. Yeah I'm sure SBONH will have a lot of clout in Concord. Maybe they'll vote for your legislation out of fear. Here's your link for anyone else who might want to challenge you.

http://www.600rr.net/gallery//browseimages.php?do=member&imageuser=42657

At least I was sent your last name and Vt Address...my family might at least might get some closure should something bad happen. SBONH is going to go a long way with people like you on board. All my best,goodbye TB

[VtSteve]

You certainly didn't receive it from me.

It amazes me how far some of you guys will go, and for what?

Number one, that's not my gallery.
Number two, I have never owned a gun on my life, ever.
Number three. I have never owned a motor cycle, and have nothing whatsoever to do with anything your twisted mind can come up with.
The fact that someone has the same screen name as I do on a motorcycle forum doesn't interest me at all. I have no interest in bikes, nor guns.

I can tell you this sir, you have a very unique problem. You've been found to be lying multiple times. You obviously don't like that.

It's a surprising thing for me to see your post, I would have though even you'd be beneath it. I was wrong.

But after seeing this link, I shouldn't be amazed at all.

http://www.ftexploring.com/askturtleboy/askturtleboy1.html

[VtSteve]

Feel free to post my last name and address right here TB.

I must say, I don't think I've ever had the displeasure of dealing with a more dishonest and disingenuous person.

And another thing TB.

I'll personally give Don access to my PM's immediately. I can tell you this with a straight face right now, You're lying again. Only this time, you've gone too far. If you try to doctor up something and say it's from me, I will give the authorities access to my entire account, starting with Don's access first.

[Turtle Boy]

By the way, this VTSteve sounds like a bad dude. His name is Steve , he's from VT, and the internet is full of his galleries showing pictures of all his assault weapons, such as at http://www.600rr.net/gallery//browseimages.php?do=member&imageuser=42657 He's probably a much more dangerous entity than . You might want to warn TB about getting too hot with him.

Here's the PM that was shared with me...you tell me how I should feel, esp. in light of your intimidating and degrading posts. I have left out your last name, town, and whom you're more scarier than. I'd be thrilled to have you prove this VtSteve is not you, if you can, given the distress you have caused for me and my family. Given your intimidating posts I'm not sure what to believe. And I am not a prude about guns but I don't print pictures of mine on line. PS that turtle boy link is not me.

[VtSteve]

That doesn't seem like much of a PM to me TB.

So, My name is Steve and I'm from Vt?
Brilliant! Absolutely Brilliant.
Now I've figured out how I can answer that Thread How Did You Come Up With Your Screen name. :emb:


Well TB, I'm not on any bike forum, don't own any guns, have no gun galleries, no motorcycles, none of that. AND, There Was Never Any Threatening Message From Me To Anybody.

I think that's pretty clear No?

I have a very complete record of every PM I've ever sent. So bring it on.

[VitaBene]

By the way, this VTSteve sounds like a bad dude. His name is Steve , he's from VT, and the internet is full of his galleries showing pictures of all his assault weapons, such as at http://www.600rr.net/gallery//browseimages.php?do=member&imageuser=42657 He's probably a much more dangerous entity than . You might want to warn TB about getting too hot with him.

Here's the PM that was shared with me...you tell me how I should feel, esp. in light of your intimidating and degrading posts. I have left out your last name, town, and whom you're more scarier than. I'd be thrilled to have you prove this VtSteve is not you, if you can, given the distress you have caused for me and my family. Given your intimidating posts I'm not sure what to believe. And I am not a prude about guns but I don't print pictures of mine on line. PS that turtle boy link is not me.

Who sent you the PM? It sounds like it was not Steve.

I hope Don gets to the bottom of this. This is an internet forum where sometimes tempers flare, but there should be no threatening tolerated by anyone.

[VtSteve]

Inquiring minds would love to know. Sounds to me like he's hedging a little bit.

I'll see what Don can do for me.

[gtagrip]

By the way, this VTSteve sounds like a bad dude. His name is Steve , he's from VT, and the internet is full of his galleries showing pictures of all his assault weapons, such as at http://www.600rr.net/gallery//browseimages.php?do=member&imageuser=42657 He's probably a much more dangerous entity than . You might want to warn TB about getting too hot with him.

Here's the PM that was shared with me...you tell me how I should feel, esp. in light of your intimidating and degrading posts. I have left out your last name, town, and whom you're more scarier than. I'd be thrilled to have you prove this VtSteve is not you, if you can, given the distress you have caused for me and my family. Given your intimidating posts I'm not sure what to believe. And I am not a prude about guns but I don't print pictures of mine on line. PS that turtle boy link is not me.

Say what? Am I missing something here?

[VtSteve]

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=144448&postcount=1

TB's a creative little lad isn't he?

[Turtle Boy]

I have notified Don as well. No one said you sent it but Don will indeed verify that it was sent.

[gtagrip]

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=144448&postcount=1

TB's a creative little lad isn't he?

Sure he is! I was thinking he was starting to sound like APS!:emb:

[hazelnut]

Steve Don sees every single PM, he does not need permission. Apparently this little fact escaped our little Turtle friend before he started lying YET AGAIN!

This is yet another example of completely lying by Turtle boy. However here is my favorite part, Turtle Boy is now crying that we are mean and denigrating. Hmmm lets see if my memory serves me correctly. Who is the ONLY person on winnipesaukee.com to EVER harass me about my teaching abilities? Who is the ONLY person to EVER make rude and outright nasty comments about what I do and how I treat my students? I'll give you all a chance to research TB's posts. Please do so and see what a nasty, mean, completely condescending a$$ he is. Now he wants to sit here and cry that we caught him lying TWICE now!

Please do us all a favor and disappear forever, or better yet reinvent yourself as your buddy did. Come up with a new screen name and start over. You have embarrassed yourself one time too many and it is time to cut your losses and leave us alone. I am so sick of the lying and character assassinations on this site. What certain members did to Scott and now what YB is doing here is DISGUSTING. Furthermore Don I was completely pissed off that you would let TB question my job and how I do it. Now I'd love to see what this latest BS is all about.

I have chosen (at my own peril for sure) to share a TREMENDOUS amount of personal information about myself on this forum. Many know me as a teacher that has a home on Cow Island. Everyone knows where that house is as well. Fortunately many on this forum have become good friends, even some who I have disagreed with. UNFORTUNATELY only ONE person on this forum has taken this personal information and attacked me. The one and only TURTLE BOY! Now he is making up lies in an attempt to attack yet another person on this forum. This is completely and utterly disgusting behavior and not one member of this forum should be subjected to it. I am not sure about anyone else but I HAVE HAD IT!!!!!!! Enough is enough. This guy is nothing but a cancer on this forum.
:fire::fire::fire::fire::fire::fire::fire:

[Turtle Boy]

Steve Don sees every single PM, he does not need permission. Apparently this little fact escaped our little Turtle friend before he started lying YET AGAIN!

This is yet another example of completely lying by Turtle boy. However here is my favorite part, Turtle Boy is now crying that we are mean and denigrating. Hmmm lets see if my memory serves me correctly. Who is the ONLY person on winnipesaukee.com to EVER harass me about my teaching abilities? Who is the ONLY person to EVER make rude and outright nasty comments about what I do and how I treat my students? I'll give you all a chance to research TB's posts. Please do so and see what a nasty, mean, completely condescending a$$ he is. Now he wants to sit here and cry that we caught him lying TWICE now!

Please do us all a favor and disappear forever, or better yet reinvent yourself as your buddy did. Come up with a new screen name and start over. You have embarrassed yourself one time too many and it is time to cut your losses and leave us alone. I am so sick of the lying and character assassinations on this site. What certain members did to Scott and now what YB is doing here is DISGUSTING. Furthermore Don I was completely pissed off that you would let TB question my job and how I do it. Now I'd love to see what this latest BS is all about.

I have chosen (at my own peril for sure) to share a TREMENDOUS amount of personal information about myself on this forum. Many know me as a teacher that has a home on Cow Island. Everyone knows where that house is as well. Fortunately many on this forum have become good friends, even some who I have disagreed with. UNFORTUNATELY only ONE person on this forum has taken this personal information and attacked me. The one and only TURTLE BOY! Now he is making up lies in an attempt to attack yet another person on this forum. This is completely and utterly disgusting behavior and not one member of this forum should be subjected to it. I am not sure about anyone else but I HAVE HAD IT!!!!!!! Enough is enough. This guy is nothing but a cancer on this forum.
:fire::fire::fire::fire::fire::fire::fire:

Again...Don will verify what was and wasn't sent. And as far as your teaching abilities go....go back and review what the comment was in response to...you and your buddy are scary indeed. You 2 are probably the most responsible for harassing more people who have disagreed with you off the forum. One of my favorites was calling someone pond scum. I have seen eloquent posters like fat jack, frank m, evenstar and ski man hounded off the forum by you and your buddies because they disagree with you.

Now I await proof there are 2 Vt Steves...havn't seen it yet.

[Yankee]

Number two, I have never owned a gun on my life, ever.
Number three. I have never owned a motor cycle


Damn, and I was just beginning to like you!!:)

[VtSteve]

I'll try to be as civil as one can be, given the circumstances and developments of today being as they are.

Absolutely nobody is trying to scare anyone away from anywhere. The developments in this forum today, are a direct reflection of certain people being called out for posting lies. Before that, certain people were caught using tactics that most folks deem sneaky. Those tactics were further supported by people that seemed to have turned up missing.

I don't think it's particularly mean or nasty to point these things out, because they are patently obvious to anyone following this wonderful story. But it's one thing to disagree, or even get angry when called out. But it's yet another to accuse someone of sending messages like you inferred, and still another to post someone's gallery and claim it's mine. It's not, plain and simple. This is a simple case of professional trollers using slander and lies to stifle any conversation they don't agree with.

If you can't debate the topic, and refuse to back up your own statements, this is what you have left. Your insinuations and attacks are personal, slanderous, and pretty much indicative of what you stand for. I post my opinions in a public forum, without hiding, and for all to see. I can be wrong, I can be right. But trust me on this, I won't lie.

It's pretty ironic how you guys continue to berate and badger HN, a man who's put forth the most valid and selfless information on the thread topic overall. HN is also a guy that spent some serious time debating whether or not his own selfish reasons for agreeing with you on the NWZ overrode the public's interest. He decided it was not, and consulted and discussed it with the people he lives with on the Island. Regardless of whether I agreed with him or not, I respect how he spent personal time on the issue, and discussed it with his neighbors.

That's the way real life is supposed to work. Not sneaking around behind people's backs, lying about contacts and petitions, and even resorting to fake personal and slanderous attacks when you've been found out. It's called having character.

[RANGER CANOE CO]

By the way, this VTSteve sounds like a bad dude. His name is Steve , he's from VT, and the internet is full of his galleries showing pictures of all his assault weapons, such as at http://www.600rr.net/gallery//browseimages.php?do=member&imageuser=42657 He's probably a much more dangerous entity than . You might want to warn TB about getting too hot with him.

Here's the PM that was shared with me...you tell me how I should feel, esp. in light of your intimidating and degrading posts. I have left out your last name, town, and whom you're more scarier than. I'd be thrilled to have you prove this VtSteve is not you, if you can, given the distress you have caused for me and my family. Given your intimidating posts I'm not sure what to believe. And I am not a prude about guns but I don't print pictures of mine on line. PS that turtle boy link is not me.Sir, as a new member, I find your accusations disturbing against another member here. It is impossible to hack into someones user name controls, to then send a PM. There are 3 members on this site with "VT" user names, 2 of them with zero posts. So,,, Post the alleged threatening PM you supposedly received, that you are so threatened and afraid of, for all to read. If you do not as per my request. Then Sir, you are not telling the truth, and you are a disservice to this web site.

[Turtle Boy]

As I said, we'll leave it to Don to verify that TB was indeed warned; any person would be disturbed to hear this and then see the link. Clearly it is in my best interests to have 2 VtSteves given the nature of the link. Again, Don can verify that said was warning was legit. In the meantime, as per this AM's LDS, I see more light has been shed on the gang of two and their accusations of lying and dishonesty. Oh wait, the person's last name is Clark...has to be related to WC. Or you would only have to change 3 letters to change Clark to Chase.

Majority of people on Barber Pole Road want a no wake zone
Nov 23, 2010 12:00 am
To the editor,

Michael Kitch’s article (Saturday, Nov. 20) concerning the no wake zone (NWZ) in the Barber Pole requires some clarification. As someone who has summered for 27 years in my parents’ cottage in this area, I am aware of three attempts since 1997 to get a NWZ in place. The area in question is the 390-feet between the buoy and Squirrel Island. This narrow and congested passage can be a logistical nightmare in the summer, given the 150-foot passage law. People in the Barber Pole recognized this and over these 13 years a majority of people from Barber Pole Rd., Squirrel and Little Birch Islands, and many people on the Cow Island passage in the Barber Pole have signed-on in favor. Incidentally, several of the Cow Islander’s who have signed-on in the past were neighbors of the person quoted in your article as being only able to find two people in favor of the NWZ. One only has to read the names of people who signed in favor of the NWZ at the hearing last July and read the letters submitted subsequently to the DOS to realize just how many people are in favor. Seventeen extra minutes to traverse the channel? My calculation using the length of the proposed area was less than two minutes!

Also keep in mind the stated objective when SBONH was formed last year was to oppose the speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee. To this end they started an online petition whereby people from all over the country and beyond were encouraged to sign because “your lake could be next”. Now Mr. Verdonck objects to the manner in which Barber Pole residents input was obtained? Furthermore, at the second hearing in October, appellants from outside the Barber Pole were allowed to testify, but no one in favor of the NWZ.

I find it compelling that the DOS would rule in favor of this NWZ, citing serious safety issues, and then reverse its ruling on a technicality. I was one such technicality in that the property that I will inherit is still in my parents’ name so I was not considered a landowner. Other names were similarly disqualified because they were spouses who did not appear on the deed etc. The statutes regarding the submission of signatures are vaguely worded and the original petitioners were told only that “25 signatures were needed”.

The area in question is indeed a safety hazard with many of its residents in favor of a NWZ. The DOS agreed. They need to do the right thing and institute this NWZ before a serious accident occurs.

C. Clark

Tuftonboro

[Ryan]

Majority of people on Barber Pole Road want a no wake zone
Nov 23, 2010 12:00 am
To the editor,

One only has to read the names of people who signed in favor of the NWZ at the hearing last July and read the letters submitted subsequently to the DOS to realize just how many people are in favor.

C. Clark

Tuftonboro

I can't believe this didn't make the front page....oh, that's right...that's because it's an opinion piece - where facts do not matter.

[hazelnut]

Yup that's it TB you win! You're right, this C. Clark fella knows my neighbors better than I do. :laugh::laugh:

WOW! You and C. Clark must be omniscient. Please can you tell me what residents of Rattlesnake Island are thinking? Better yet how about the folks that live in Suissevale, what issues are plaguing them pray tell.
By all means don't bother reading the COW ISLAND forum where the current living property owners that live in the channel (myself included) openly discuss our opposition to a NWZ in the channel. No, no, no take Mr. C. Clark's word for it. Don't bother listening to facts where 99% of the folks that have houses in the channel vehemently oppose the NWZ INCLUDING the YMCA Camp directors. No why would you listen to that? Why would you care that at the October 1st hearing the room was filled with the disgruntled residents of Barbers Pole Road and Cow Island that were pissed off that your little sneaky friends tried to pull a fast one. Let's ignore the fact that the state squashed the ruling because none of the "names" could be verified on the original petition. Funny though the state had no problem whatsoever verifying the names on the petition to re-open the hearing. Hmmm that's odd?

You and Mr. C. Clark can go live in your land of make believe and lies.
The state researched all those names submitted to the DOS and figured out what we all knew, none of them were residents or property owners. But hey that doesn't matter to you or Mr Clark, cuz thems the facts. We all know what happen when you are confronted with facts don't we? You lash out, lie, and then cry wee wee wee all the way home when people prove you are lying.

[gtagrip]

As I said, we'll leave it to Don to verify that TB was indeed warned; any person would be disturbed to hear this and then see the link.

Like the segment from Monday Night Football, "C'MON MAN!":emb:

[VtSteve]

As I said, we'll leave it to Don to verify that TB was indeed warned; any person would be disturbed to hear this and then see the link.

Which of course, was your intent, to get people disturbed. You threw it out there with the hopes of trashing your opponent, knowing full well you and your buddies had no idea what you were talking about. Nor, did you care. It was an intentional act, like a chop block. Take the penalty, but inflict some damage. Again, lack of character. IMHO, of course.

[Skip]

For those of you that subscribe or purchase the Sunday Union Leader, you can find an editorial penned by Ed Chase regarding th Barber's Pole No-Wake issue. The letter is featured prominenetly on the main editorial page of today's paper.

Of interest is the correct prediction he makes that one of the goals of the leader of SBONH is to revoke the current speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Being showcased on the main editorial page, his letter is sure to get a great deal of exposure and hopefully will generate significant intelligent debate in reference to the concerns he airs.

Interesting letter Ed! :)

[Yosemite Sam]

For those of you that subscribe or purchase the Sunday Union Leader, you can find an editorial penned by Ed Chase regarding th Barber's Pole No-Wake issue. The letter is featured prominenetly on the main editorial page of today's paper.

Of interest is the correct prediction he makes that one of the goals of the leader of SBONH is to revoke the current speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Being showcased on the main editorial page, his letter is sure to get a great deal of exposure and hopefully will generate significant intelligent debate in reference to the concerns he airs.

Interesting letter Ed! :)

What could Ed Chase say that he hasn’t already said about the Barber’s Pole NWZ, SBONH president (Active Cult Member), or Lake Winni Speed Limit, that he hasn’t already said numerous times?

I’m not saying I disagree with him, I’m just curious as to what new exciting news he could possibly have.

Here is an article that was in the Concord Monitor on November 22, 2010:

“The New Hampshire Department of Safety has reversed its earlier decision that had established a no-wake zone in the narrow and often busy Barber's Pole channel of Lake Winnipesaukee as the result of a request from a group of boaters headed by a member of a performance boating club calling itself the Active Thunder Cult.
The Department of Safety made this reversal based on a technicality raised by this boating group, despite having earlier found that without the no-wake designation, present law "does not provide adequate safety" and that "no-wake speed along this route within Lake Winnipesaukee will improve public safety; maintenance of residential, recreational and scenic values . . . and environment and water quality."
Using the moniker "Safe Boaters of New Hampshire," the group, whose founder has stated a primary mission of having Lake Winnipesaukee's boating speed limit repealed, has arranged so that most boaters may again travel full throttle through the narrow, two-way channel, even after the Department of Safety had determined that "There is not sufficient availability and practicality of enforcement" to ensure safety in the channel absent no-wake speed limitations.”
ED CHASE
http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/225391/safe-boaters

[sunset on the dock]

Can anyone print the UL letter/editorial?...I was unable to track it down on the UL site....thanks.

[hazelnut]

Can anyone print the UL letter/editorial?...I was unable to track it down on the UL site....thanks.

I heard through the grapevine it's basically a cut and paste from every other paper he has sent it to. :rolleye2:

Poor guy it must kill him that the residents of the area are happy with the State's decision. :laugh:

Next stop USA Today and then it's off to CNN.

[Skip]

Can anyone print the UL letter/editorial?...I was unable to track it down on the UL site....thanks.

This is it:


The New Hampshire Department of Safety has reversed its earlier decision that had established a no-wake zone in the narrow and often busy Barber's Pole channel of Lake Winnipesaukee as the result of a request from a group of boaters headed by a member of a performance boating club calling itself the Active Thunder Cult.

The Department of Safety made this reversal based on a technicality raised by this boating group, despite having earlier found that without the no-wake designation, present law "does not provide adequate safety" and that "no-wake speed along this route within Lake Winnipesaukee will improve public safety; maintenance of residential, recreational and scenic values . . . and environment and water quality."

Using the moniker "Safe Boaters of New Hampshire," the group, whose founder has stated a primary mission of having Lake Winnipesaukee's boating speed limit repealed, has arranged so that most boaters may again travel full throttle through the narrow, two-way channel, even after the Department of Safety had determined that "There is not sufficient availability and practicality of enforcement" to ensure safety in the channel absent no-wake speed limitations.

[hazelnut]

I rest my case. :laugh:

Thanks for the repost Skip. Additional thanks to Yosemite Sam for the post from the 11/22 Concord Monitor. I'm wondering if the Boston Globe got a copy? ;)

[Skip]

I rest my case. :laugh:

Thanks for the repost Skip. Additional thanks to Yosemite Sam for the post from the 11/22 Concord Monitor. I'm wondering if the Boston Globe got a copy? ;)

You're welcome.

And in all fairness, doesn't SBONH mail its press releases to all available news outlets as well?

While I realize that the letter had been posted in a number of papers, including a few days ago in the Concord Monitor, the reason for my post was because of where it appeared in the Sunday Union Leader. It wasn't buried in the usual pages containing dozens of letters to the editor, but was one of two letters selected for exclusive printing on the paper's main editorial page.

It is unique that the paper's editor chose to single it out, so I felt it was newsworthy to bring it to the attention of those interested in this particular thread.

[Yosemite Sam]

I rest my case. :laugh:

Thanks for the repost Skip. Additional thanks to Yosemite Sam for the post from the 11/22 Concord Monitor. I'm wondering if the Boston Globe got a copy? ;)

Somehow the article in the UL didn't excite me too much :(....I wonder what Skip saw in this article that I didn't? I was hoping for some earth shattering news that we all hadn't heard before...Oh well!
I almost went out and bought todays Union Leader.... that was too close for comfort. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Skip]

Somehow the article in the UL didn't excite me too much :(....I wonder what Skip saw in this article that I didn't? I was hoping for some earth shattering news that we all hadn't heard before...Oh well!
I almost went out and bought todays Union Leader.... that was too close for comfort. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

See post 357 for the answer to your question.....:laugh::laugh::laugh:

;)

[hazelnut]

You're welcome.

And in all fairness, doesn't SBONH mail its press releases to all available news outlets as well?

While I realize that the letter had been posted in a number of papers, including a few days ago in the Concord Monitor, the reason for my post was because of where it appeared in the Sunday Union Leader. It wasn't buried in the usual pages containing dozens of letters to the editor, but was one of two letters selected for exclusive printing on the paper's main editorial page.

It is unique that the paper's editor chose to single it out, so I felt it was newsworthy to bring it to the attention of those interested in this particular thread.

Really Skip :rolleye2:

Your original post had me thinking that Mr. Chase came up with something new other than the usual rantings of the insane. A Press Release and a rambling editorial that actually says nothing are hardly the same thing. I don't want to split hairs or argue with you, as I have said before, because I value your opinions. However, this "editorial" is nothing but slander, drivel, conjecture, etc. etc. etc.

For example, I quote: "...has arranged so that most boaters may again travel full throttle through the narrow, two-way channel."
Oh really? really? :eek: But what about the Speed Limit? It's working right? :eek: No, no, no, this is the ONLY place on the lake where people travel full throttle? They actually slow down in the broads and as soon as they hit that channel WHAMO! It's full throttle baby!!! hahahahahahaha. Thank you SBONH for arranging that. ;)

I really don't know why I am bothering to reply to this editorial though. The more it gets posted the more Mr. Chase looks like a fool so he's actually helping our cause. I should forward it to the Globe myself. :laugh:

I'm actually not directing this at you Skip, you were just merely passing on the info. In your defense you were unaware that we had already seen and heard this before.

[Skip]

Nope, no offense taken...and I did appreciate your compliment a few posts back.

Thank you! :)

[VtSteve]

It's from Ed Chase, so I certainly think most likely it is.

Skip, what do you think about that "article". I'll bet many people are afraid to have their 2 year olds boat out there now, with less than 26 HP boats to defend themselves. :laugh:

I wonder what makes people boat FULL THROTTLE through that really narrow area, but nowhere else?

[hazelnut]

It's from Ed Chase, so I certainly think most likely it is.

Skip, what do you think about that "article". I'll bet many people are afraid to have their 2 year olds boat out there now, with less than 26 HP boats to defend themselves. :laugh:

I wonder what makes people boat FULL THROTTLE through that really narrow area, but nowhere else?

Steve obviously you haven't heard, I wave a black and white checkered flag at my dock and it encourages boaters to goose the throttle. :eek:

[VtSteve]

Steve obviously you haven't heard, I wave a black and white checkered flag at my dock and it encourages boaters to goose the throttle. :eek:

I just new you were a full throttle boater :eek:

Why can't you just go 6 mph like everyone else?

[VtSteve]

So. TB has never responded to my requests to produce what he says were threatening PM's, and he has never responded to my statements that he was just plain wrong. Don, obviously, has done nothing.

Now Skip, the above all high and mighty, posts a revelation that has been posted by the same idiot that posts the same letter everywhere. Great job Skip. You're a good ditto head now. Is this what you meant by acting like an adult?

Nice fact checks as well, I know what you guys stand for now.



So an honest question:

How do people go Full Throttle through the BP channel when the speed limit is working so well elsewhere?


Amazing turnaround.

[classic22]

Public service announcement. Final word from the department of safety regarding the No wake zone. I think it speaks for it self.

[ApS]

the residents of the area are happy with the State's decision.
Finally, somebody's saying,

"There will NEVER be a NWZ at Barbers Pole".

:look:

[hazelnut]

Finally, somebody's saying,

"There will NEVER be a NWZ at Barbers Pole".

:look:

What the ? Did you forget to take some meds or something? :laugh:

Ok you know what I will say it, if this makes you happy. I have no idea what point you are trying to make but here goes APS:

There will never be a No Wake Zone at the Barbers Pole (if I have any say).
:confused:

There I said it SO WHAT?!?!

You are one weird dude.

[sunset on the dock]

Sometimes people with the least respect for the truth are the most likely to call others liars. Today's front page article in the LDS is a perfect example. A certain NUT who lives in the BP and his little green mountain buddy seem to have taken a few "liberties" in this regard. My favotite was their assertion that only 2 people were in favor of the NWZ. Did you go to those same bars and arcades as last year to take your poll of BP residents? Oh yeah...20 minutes to get through the NWZ...sure...if you're doing the dog paddle. I think these people deserve and will get their NWZ.



Local News
Barber's Pole residents will try again for NWZ
By Michael Kitch
Dec 03, 2010 12:00 am
TUFTONBORO — Many of those who reside and summer along Barber's Pole, the channel between Cow Island and Tuftonboro Neck will likely renew their effort to have the stretch of water designated a "no wake zone."

Tom Hilbink, who owns property on Little Birch Island, was among several residents to say yesterday that, after the New Hampshire Department of Safety (DOS) rescinded its order granting their petition for a "no wake zone" on procedural grounds, they expected to submit a new request as soon as possible.

Barber's Pole stretches for about 2,000 feet — about twice the length of the Weirs Channel — from the southeastern tip of Little Birch Island, off the mouth of Orchard Cove, to where the eastern shoreline of Cow Island recedes to the west. Between the buoys to the west and the shore to the east, the channel is about 390 feet wide.

Legal residents, or property owners, of the township in question are the only ones who may petition the commissioner of safety to place operating restrictions, including limits on the maximum horsepower or speed of boats, on lakes, ponds and rivers. After holding a public hearing the commissioner may adopt rules to impose restrictions found to serve the public interest. Altogether restrictions have been imposed on more than 50 lakes and ponds through this process.

Petitions for a "no wake zone" at Barber's Pole failed in 1988, 1997 and 2008, in part because the New Hampshire Marine Patrol opposed them. Last May, residents tried again. A hearing was held on July 21 and on July 30 Commissioner John Barthelmes issued the order.

However, the order was appealed by a group including Scott Verdonck, the president, and Bob Flannery, the political director, of Safe Boaters of New Hampshire, the organization formed in opposition to legislation to limit speeds on Lake Winnipesaukee. They successfully claimed that some of the petitioners failed to qualify as either residents or property owners of Tuftonboro and the order was rescinded.

The overwhelming majority of those who attended the public hearing and submitted written comments to the DOS favored the "no wake zone." Moreover, David Barrett of the Marine Patrol withdrew his agency's challenge to the measure and declined to take a position either for or against it.

Safety was the uppermost concern among advocates of the "no wake zone."

The Boris family has owned Squirrel Island since the 1860s. Vanessa Boris told DOS that that the volume and speed of boat traffic through the passage made travel between the island and the mainland difficult and dangerous. Describing the situation as "truly chaotic," she likened crossing the channel to crossing I-93. Many of those supporting the "no wake zone" said that swimmers, anglers, kayakers and canoeists were increasingly at risk from powerboats that frequently ignored the 150-foot rule, requiring vessels to maintain headway speed only when within 150 feet of swimmers, rafts, docks, moorings and shorelines, as well as other vessels.

In addition to the hazards of congestion and speed in the channel, many property owners traced increasing erosion along the shorefront to the number, size and speed of boats, whose wakes have undermined trees and shrubs lining the water. Others said that roiling waters have damaged their docks.

Several residents noted that a "no wake zone" at Barber's Pole would be comparable to similar zones designated between Governor's Island and Eagle Island in Gilford and Chase Island and Farm Island in Nineteen Mile Bay.

Opponents of the "no wake zone" discounted concerns for safety. Michael Burke wrote to DOS saying that there are very few days during the boating season when traffic through Barber's Pole is heavy and then "the vast majority of boaters slow down to no wake speed in accordance with the 150-foot rule." Like others, he called for more education and enforcement of the existing rules rather than more restrictions.

Others said a "no wake zone" would slow travel between the islands and the mainland. Testing the claim of a resident of Sandy Island that 20 minutes would be added to the trip, Thomas Light of Little Birch Island said he paddled the length of the channel in 12 minutes, doubting anyone would have to travel slower than a 55-year-old in a canoe.

In framing his recommendation to the commission, the hearings officer, C.N. Duclos, noted that the testimony echoed much of what was presented in 2008, including a video of vessels passing through Barber's Pole, which he did not find persuasive. Instead, he gave greater weight to Barrett's decision not to contest the petition. Those opposed to a "no wake zone," Duclos said, did not indicate that any activity in the channel would be restricted or eliminated if it were imposed. Consequently, he concluded that a "no wake zone" would control, without greatly restricting, the diverse uses of the public water at Barber's Pole.

Barrett said yesterday that in dropping his challenge to a "no wake zone" at Barber's Pole "didn't mean I endorsed it either." He said that the number of citations and accidents in the area did not support the restriction. However, he indicated that if another petition was submitted, he would not challenge it.

Likewise, Verdonck said that Safe Boaters of New Hampshire would not oppose designating Barber's Pole a "no wake zone." But, at the same time, he emphasized that the organization will insist that any petition and public hearings be widely publicized to provide all interested parties with an opportunity to participate in the process. He said that his membership was troubled that a legal notice in a newspaper failed to adequately inform interested parties that a change in operating protocols on the lake was being contemplated. At Verdonck's request Representative John Hikel (R-Goffstown) has filed legislation requiring those petitioning for restrictions on the use of public waters to notify all abutters of the forthcoming hearing by certified mail.

Meanwhile, Representative Betsey Patten (R-Moultonborough) has also introduced legislation that would authorize the DOS to adopt operating restrictions in the public interest without necessarily holding a public hearing.

[gtagrip]

Sometimes people with the least respect for the truth are the most likely to call others liars. Today's front page article in the LDS is a perfect example. A certain NUT who lives in the BP and his little green mountain buddy seem to have taken a few "liberties" in this regard. My favotite was their assertion that only 2 people were in favor of the NWZ. Did you go to those same bars and arcades as last year to take your poll of BP residents? Oh yeah...20 minutes to get through the NWZ...sure...if you're doing the dog paddle. I think these people deserve and will get their NWZ.



Local News
Barber's Pole residents will try again for NWZ
By Michael Kitch
Dec 03, 2010 12:00 am
TUFTONBORO — Many of those who reside and summer along Barber's Pole, the channel between Cow Island and Tuftonboro Neck will likely renew their effort to have the stretch of water designated a "no wake zone."

Tom Hilbink, who owns property on Little Birch Island, was among several residents to say yesterday that, after the New Hampshire Department of Safety (DOS) rescinded its order granting their petition for a "no wake zone" on procedural grounds, they expected to submit a new request as soon as possible.

Barber's Pole stretches for about 2,000 feet — about twice the length of the Weirs Channel — from the southeastern tip of Little Birch Island, off the mouth of Orchard Cove, to where the eastern shoreline of Cow Island recedes to the west. Between the buoys to the west and the shore to the east, the channel is about 390 feet wide.

Legal residents, or property owners, of the township in question are the only ones who may petition the commissioner of safety to place operating restrictions, including limits on the maximum horsepower or speed of boats, on lakes, ponds and rivers. After holding a public hearing the commissioner may adopt rules to impose restrictions found to serve the public interest. Altogether restrictions have been imposed on more than 50 lakes and ponds through this process.

Petitions for a "no wake zone" at Barber's Pole failed in 1988, 1997 and 2008, in part because the New Hampshire Marine Patrol opposed them. Last May, residents tried again. A hearing was held on July 21 and on July 30 Commissioner John Barthelmes issued the order.

However, the order was appealed by a group including Scott Verdonck, the president, and Bob Flannery, the political director, of Safe Boaters of New Hampshire, the organization formed in opposition to legislation to limit speeds on Lake Winnipesaukee. They successfully claimed that some of the petitioners failed to qualify as either residents or property owners of Tuftonboro and the order was rescinded.

The overwhelming majority of those who attended the public hearing and submitted written comments to the DOS favored the "no wake zone." Moreover, David Barrett of the Marine Patrol withdrew his agency's challenge to the measure and declined to take a position either for or against it.

Safety was the uppermost concern among advocates of the "no wake zone."

The Boris family has owned Squirrel Island since the 1860s. Vanessa Boris told DOS that that the volume and speed of boat traffic through the passage made travel between the island and the mainland difficult and dangerous. Describing the situation as "truly chaotic," she likened crossing the channel to crossing I-93. Many of those supporting the "no wake zone" said that swimmers, anglers, kayakers and canoeists were increasingly at risk from powerboats that frequently ignored the 150-foot rule, requiring vessels to maintain headway speed only when within 150 feet of swimmers, rafts, docks, moorings and shorelines, as well as other vessels.

In addition to the hazards of congestion and speed in the channel, many property owners traced increasing erosion along the shorefront to the number, size and speed of boats, whose wakes have undermined trees and shrubs lining the water. Others said that roiling waters have damaged their docks.

Several residents noted that a "no wake zone" at Barber's Pole would be comparable to similar zones designated between Governor's Island and Eagle Island in Gilford and Chase Island and Farm Island in Nineteen Mile Bay.

Opponents of the "no wake zone" discounted concerns for safety. Michael Burke wrote to DOS saying that there are very few days during the boating season when traffic through Barber's Pole is heavy and then "the vast majority of boaters slow down to no wake speed in accordance with the 150-foot rule." Like others, he called for more education and enforcement of the existing rules rather than more restrictions.

Others said a "no wake zone" would slow travel between the islands and the mainland. Testing the claim of a resident of Sandy Island that 20 minutes would be added to the trip, Thomas Light of Little Birch Island said he paddled the length of the channel in 12 minutes, doubting anyone would have to travel slower than a 55-year-old in a canoe.

In framing his recommendation to the commission, the hearings officer, C.N. Duclos, noted that the testimony echoed much of what was presented in 2008, including a video of vessels passing through Barber's Pole, which he did not find persuasive. Instead, he gave greater weight to Barrett's decision not to contest the petition. Those opposed to a "no wake zone," Duclos said, did not indicate that any activity in the channel would be restricted or eliminated if it were imposed. Consequently, he concluded that a "no wake zone" would control, without greatly restricting, the diverse uses of the public water at Barber's Pole.

Barrett said yesterday that in dropping his challenge to a "no wake zone" at Barber's Pole "didn't mean I endorsed it either." He said that the number of citations and accidents in the area did not support the restriction. However, he indicated that if another petition was submitted, he would not challenge it.

Likewise, Verdonck said that Safe Boaters of New Hampshire would not oppose designating Barber's Pole a "no wake zone." But, at the same time, he emphasized that the organization will insist that any petition and public hearings be widely publicized to provide all interested parties with an opportunity to participate in the process. He said that his membership was troubled that a legal notice in a newspaper failed to adequately inform interested parties that a change in operating protocols on the lake was being contemplated. At Verdonck's request Representative John Hikel (R-Goffstown) has filed legislation requiring those petitioning for restrictions on the use of public waters to notify all abutters of the forthcoming hearing by certified mail.

Meanwhile, Representative Betsey Patten (R-Moultonborough) has also introduced legislation that would authorize the DOS to adopt operating restrictions in the public interest without necessarily holding a public hearing.

Vanessa Boris is quoted to say it is "truly Chaotic" in the BP area. Although other have said the SL was working wonders on the entire lake. What happened? :confused:

[VtSteve]

So I guess the Cow Island people don't really matter? There's a pretty good record in the BP thread as to who gave testimony and appeared at the "Hearing".

I also notice absolutely nothing in the letter praising the SL law for making the lake so safe and wonderful :rolleye2:



I also might point out to you that you might want to go back and read what HN was saying about the Cow Island residents, and then review who he said were the original petitioners.

Truly not a group that makes decisions based on input from all sides.

[gtagrip]

[QUOTE=VtSteve;145200]So I guess the Cow Island people don't really matter? There's a pretty good record in the BP thread as to who gave testimony and appeared at the "Hearing".

I also notice absolutely nothing in the letter praising the SL law for making the lake so safe and wonderful :rolleye2:

But this one is a piece of work



So whomever controls the DOS controls the lake? No need for any public input anymore. Why would this be? The letter points out, as do many others, that there was an Overwhelming support for this particular NWZ. I would think that a public hearing would leave you victorious. Is it too much bother to deal with the people anymore?[QUOTE]

I think I've heard somewhere many times by the pro SL crowd, that the people of NH own the lake. Waiting for the spin on this statement. :rolleye2:

[ApS]

SOTD's new article advises that this entire BP NWZ discussion has been disingenuous:

Both Director Barrett and SBONH-NHRBA have withdrawn their objections!

:eek2:

There will never be a No Wake Zone at the Barbers Pole (if I have any say). :confused: There I said it SO WHAT?!?! You are one weird dude.
If "one weird dude" is what it takes to disclose your genuine position, then that's what it will take. :rolleye1:

So I guess the Cow Island people don't really matter? There's a pretty good record in the BP thread as to who gave testimony and appeared at the "Hearing".
In response to this discussion, I toured the Barbers Pole area myself. :cool:

I noted the peaceful "tour-boat" behavior of the YMCA boat, and was astounded at what I heard from the only "YMCA guy" at the hearing. :eek2:

I also notice absolutely nothing in the letter praising the SL law for making the lake so safe and wonderful :rolleye2:
:offtopic:

[VtSteve]

SOTD's new article advises that this entire BP NWZ discussion has been disingenuous:

Both Director Barrett and SBONH-NHRBA have withdrawn their objections!

:eek2:

As I recall, SBONH never had an objection to the NWZ. They objected to the process of notification, or lack thereof.



:offtopic:

It certainly is not OT APS. Pro SL supporters have consistently stated all year how marvelous and peaceful the lake has been since the law passed. The BP area was never mentioned. As you know, in order to get the BP NWZ passed, a small group of people from two islands snuck in a petition and had a little meeting. As far as I know, hardly anyone, if anyone, on Cows Island even knew about it.

Once it was out in the open, a group of SL supporters on this board made comments about Big Fast Boats Flying Through the area, Full Throttle cowboys, and all that. When asked about this obvious contradiction? We're still waiting for the real responses.

I might also add that Hazelnut, being one of the few honest people involved in the active area, stated fully that the NWZ would benefit him mostly. The biggest problem was the waves. I understand it's an issue for the island owner that leaves a small boat for his renters to travel back and forth from the island to their cars.


It was a great thread APS, and some pretty honest and thoughtful statements came out of it. People like yourself decided it was a perfect opportunity to label everyone not in agreement as a cowboy. All of you forgot how peaceful and pristine the lake was, and painted pictures of chaos and wildness. After all was said and done, the petitioners had not played by the law, and it was reversed. The NWZ supporters were so angry, it led to some pretty viscous attacks, including some pretty outlandish and totally fabricated statements directed at me.

So while you like to portray certain people in a bad light, I think you need to look around at who you're hanging with. Given some of your own statements, I'd say maybe you're with the right group?

When a simple NWZ topic cannot be discussed with both sides giving honest opinions, it's really pretty sad. But I'm quite sure many of you don;t see it that way.

[BroadHopper]

If the SL law is so amazing, why do we need a no wake zone? :eek:

Now back to CG Rule 6......:rolleye2:

[sunset on the dock]

Pro SL supporters have consistently stated all year how marvelous and peaceful the lake has been since the law passed. The BP area was never mentioned.

Once it was out in the open, a group of SL supporters on this board made comments about Big Fast Boats Flying Through the area, Full Throttle cowboys, and all that. When asked about this obvious contradiction? We're still waiting for the real responses.



Well here it is. It has been consistently pointed out in this forum that the SL was one piece of a puzzle or a facet for a safer and more enjoyable lake. Yet every time there is an accident on the lake, you and your little magpies chime in "I thought the SL was supposed to make all of the lake's problems go away". The same can be said for the BP NWZ. It's like trying to argue with an 8 year old. Today's letter in the LDS points this out quite precisely. The concept is simple once you take away your spin.

[VtSteve]

In order to take anyone seriously, it's important to point out that Director Barrett does not agree with you guys. It's also not wise for a little group to make fun of the USCG rules of navigation. Continually bringing up drunken boating is something that would normally be in the spotlight of reasons to enforce, not ridicule. Mr. Ed Chase now has decided that mentioning drunks on the water creates a new perception.

As has been said many times, speed was not a problem on Winni before, nor is it now, never was. If you are so concerned about a small group of "cowboys", focus your writing talents there. I will note that most proponents of safe boating, the vast and overwhelming majority, supported increased enforcement. They also support the MP in any way possible. Your little group has consistently made fun of Director Barrett, the 150' rule, and now the USCG rules.

But we move on, and let the public become informed as to what the USCG rules actually say. Information is a wonderful thing, especially when the facts are reported, not letters to the editor that continually seek to divert attention from reality. As I stated before, anyone that doesn't understand CG Rule 6, or any of the other internationally-accepted rules of boating, should not be on the water.

Those that don't obey the rules are always pretty obvious to spot. There were 8 tickets issued for speeding on Winni this past summer, presumably some of those were in NWZ's. The problems on waterways are far too frequent and serious for people to take such a personal, and selfish view of narrow agendas. Coast Guard Rule 6 is directly aimed at problem boaters and repeat offenders. It's definitely a very useful rule that is far more flexible, and useful for preventing the type of incidents that paddlers and small boaters everywhere complain about.

Most SL opponents support wider enforcement, and want to rid the waterways of all drunks and reckless boaters. This includes everyone, not just some.

[hazelnut]

I've done it before and I'll do it until you all get it:

http://www.quicktopic.com/18/H/2DcQnXwaD2qL

Go there and read. Take the time to weed through the mundane day to day trivial conversations we friendly neighbors have with each other, :emb: Read through it all APS, BIM, SOTD etc. Educate yourself on the real fact that these are my neighbors and I. The REAL living breathing residents of Cow Island, many of the posters are the people in the actual channel. Read about how we unanimously do not think a NWZ is warranted for the channel.

Can't WAIT for the spin :rolleye2:

[sunset on the dock]

Can't WAIT for the spin :rolleye2:

And here it is. According to yesterdays LDS article, the majority of letters to the DOS (wasn't it about 30?) were in favor of the NWZ. Oh, I forgot...they're all a bunch of slimy lying renters. Some of your comments must make you real popular with these neighbors.

[hazelnut]

And here it is. According to yesterdays LDS article, the majority of letters to the DOS (wasn't it about 30?) were in favor of the NWZ. Oh, I forgot...they're all a bunch of slimy lying renters. Some of your comments must make you real popular with these neighbors.

I could care less what a group of sneaky liars think about me. They only show up once in the past 10 years and they lied about why they were there. I absolutely 100% DO NOT CARE what those people think about me. The rest of my neighbors and I are disgusted with them. The letters WERE from those two or three families and that was proven, call the state, why do you think the decision was rescinded?

SOTD you are funny, thanks for helping me prove further what disingenuous people theses people are. They should hang their heads in shame. If these are friends of yours it speaks volumes of your character. I'd shy away from publicizing any association you may have with them. As of now you seem to have character in my eyes. You have a certain belief (which is wrong) but at least you stand by it.

Did you read? Did you see? Yup all those folks on the Cow Forum, close friends and neighbors of mine, we don't support a NWZ. It's OK I understand that it's a tough pill to swallow when you are confronted with concrete proof. I don't expect an apology or anything. All I want is for you to stop telling my neighbors and I what you think we support. It's frustrating for all of us and we have been emailing back and forth discussing your posts. In the end we get a chuckle out of it though. Imagine that people that don't know us are telling us what we are thinking. :emb:

[sunset on the dock]

I could care less what a group of sneaky liars think about me. They only show up once in the past 10 years and they lied about why they were there. I absolutely 100% DO NOT CARE what those people think about me. The rest of my neighbors and I are disgusted with them. The letters WERE from those two or three families and that was proven, call the state, why do you think the decision was rescinded?

SOTD you are funny, thanks for helping me prove further what disingenuous people theses people are. They should hang their heads in shame. If these are friends of yours it speaks volumes of your character. I'd shy away from publicizing any association you may have with them. As of now you seem to have character in my eyes. You have a certain belief (which is wrong) but at least you stand by it.

Did you read? Did you see? Yup all those folks on the Cow Forum, close friends and neighbors of mine, we don't support a NWZ. It's OK I understand that it's a tough pill to swallow when you are confronted with concrete proof. I don't expect an apology or anything. All I want is for you to stop telling my neighbors and I what you think we support. It's frustrating for all of us and we have been emailing back and forth discussing your posts. In the end we get a chuckle out of it though. Imagine that people telling that don't know us are telling us what we are thinking. :emb:

Concrete proof?....just check out yesterdays LDS. And letters to the DOS show significant support from both sides of the BP. But how come these people weren't hanging out in the bars and arcades you visit?:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[VtSteve]

Concrete proof?....just check out yesterdays LDS. And letters to the DOS show significant support from both sides of the BP. But how come these people weren't hanging out in the bars and arcades you visit?:laugh::laugh::laugh:

A letter from Ed Chase constitutes what exactly?

Your feeble attempts to characterize good people as drunks is pretty wild indeed. Especially given that you guys never talk about you know who, who's bar over served someone that caused a bad accident.

I think it's pretty embarrassing for someone to keep repeating fales statements, which are proven to be false. SOTD, these people know and talk to the MP, as well as legislators. They not only know who you are, they read all of your statements. The legislators that got the rug pulled over their eyes in the SL law also read all of this stuff. They read how you, and your buddies, disparage the reputations and character of people, and measure it along with your lies.

Yes, I can say lie without being mean. Because it's true grasshopper.

[ApS]

:offtopic:

It's also not wise for a little group to make fun of the USCG rules of navigation.
Because those same rules are mirrored in NH law... :coolsm: ...That "little group" would be the NH Legislature. :laugh:

Every weekend, USCG rules appear too complicated for weekend boaters. :confused: OTOH, Winnipesaukee's Speed Limit happens to be simple enough—is enforceable—and has been enforced! :cool:

Newly rejecting the Legislature's years of deliberations would embarrass any newly-elected Legislators. The state would be returning to the "Cow-Hampshire" of old.

SBONH-NHRBA's pipe-dream will languish forever.

1) From the Marianas Islands to Maine, the Coast Guard has jurisdiction over more square miles of water than all the square miles of land in the USA! (So, shall we return to those quaint night-time rules that allow a flashlight instead of requiring real lighting?) :eek:

2) Replace the NH buoy system with the Coast Gurad's ATONs to endanger night-time boaters? :eek2:

3) "Red-right-returning" rules? :confused:

4) Or shall we just allow Director Barrett and the NHMP to do their job using the State's long-established infrastructure—or have SBONH "Federalize" still one more realm of NH citizens' lives? :(

BTW: Viewing the Cow Islander forum shows me it's virtually the same tight little group as here. :(

it's important to point out that Director Barrett does not agree with you guys.
He has obviously distanced himself from the BP issue—realizing instead—the democratic process will take precedence over and above his own views. :cool:

Perhaps the Director now knows who he works for? :confused:

Continually bringing up drunken boating is something that would normally be in the spotlight of reasons to enforce, not ridicule.
IMO, New Hampshire has developed a very poor reputation for keeping drunks off the roadways: In recent fatal collisions on Lake Winnipesaukee, alcohol-excess wasn't found to be particularly worthy of successful prosecution by the state. :(

Lt. Dunleavey once stated (as a Sergeant) that 40% of boaters had alcohol on board. VtSteve is not suggesting that alcohol is just being transported—and not consumed on Lake Winnipesaukee? :confused:

Because of its tragic outcome, SL supporters cannot ridicule SBONH-NHRBA's most recent collision.

As has been said many times, speed was not a problem on Winni before, nor is it now, never was. If you are so concerned about a small group of "cowboys", focus your writing talents there. I will note that most proponents of safe boating, the vast and overwhelming majority, supported increased enforcement. They also support the MP in any way possible. Your little group has consistently made fun of Director Barrett, the 150' rule, and now the USCG rules.
Not worthy of response, that last sentence is absurd on its face!

Kayakers take note: SBONH-NHRBA dismisses USCG Rule 5 repeatedly on this forum. :(

Those that don't obey the rules are always pretty obvious to spot. There were 8 tickets issued for speeding on Winni this past summer, presumably some of those were in NWZ's.
Maybe 130-MPH in a NWZ? :eek:

How short is memory. :rolleye2:

I still see a few Cowboys every weekend; unfortunately, those few Cowboys are enough to overwhelm the ability of the the NHMP to "do its job" on weekends. :eek2:

Most SL opponents support wider enforcement, and want to rid the waterways of all drunks and reckless boaters. This includes everyone, not just some.
We've heard these very same platitudes before—like just before Governor Lynch signed the SL bill upon hearing of the SBONH-predecessor's very outspoken President fatally breaking both the substance and the spirit of Rule 5.

Platitudes have never abounded so fully as in this thread.

:confused: It's in Vermont water? :confused:

[Seaplane Pilot]

[QUOTE=VtSteve;145266]Your feeble attempts to characterize good people as drunks is pretty wild indeed. Especially given that you guys never talk about you know who, who's bar over served someone that caused a bad accident.QUOTE]

Excellent point - and one that should be exposed more than it has been. It's amazing how these "industry" supporters of the SL and WINFABS earn their millions in the hospitality industry, especially by selling alcohol. I can just see these businesspeople swallowing hard, thinking how much they hate the "THUNDER BOAT COWBOYS" while they're depositing all this money in the bank.

Let them keep digging their own graves - they look more and more rediculous every day.

[hazelnut]

Concrete proof?....just check out yesterdays LDS. And letters to the DOS show significant support from both sides of the BP. But how come these people weren't hanging out in the bars and arcades you visit?:laugh::laugh::laugh:

And here it is folks, read what SOTD wrote... I'll give you a second. Ok, so I give him proof, I give him a link to a website so he can read what my neighbors and I are discussing and what does he do? He insults and ridicules me. Save these posts when SOTD starts crying that we are big mean bullies.

If you can't fight facts with facts make up lies and disparage people. These are the tactics of the little band of three on this website. :rolleye2:

[hazelnut]

BTW: Viewing the Cow Islander forum shows me it's virtually the same tight little group as here. :(

:

Completely false statement. Besides myself OCD has posted a few informative posts. But here we go with facts again those just don't seem to matter to you guys?:confused:

[VtSteve]

[QUOTE=VtSteve;145266]Your feeble attempts to characterize good people as drunks is pretty wild indeed. Especially given that you guys never talk about you know who, who's bar over served someone that caused a bad accident.QUOTE]

Excellent point - and one that should be exposed more than it has been. It's amazing how these "industry" supporters of the SL and WINFABS earn their millions in the hospitality industry, especially by selling alcohol. I can just see these businesspeople swallowing hard, thinking how much they hate the "THUNDER BOAT COWBOYS" while they're depositing all this money in the bank.

Let them keep digging their own graves - they look more and more rediculous every day.

Well that's our opinion of course. But we label it as such, and let people figure it out. I'm all for civility and open discussions. But when someone writes a letter to a paper, which makes blatant accusations, slanders the reputations of good people, and uses partial quotes out of context, and claims these are Facts, I will address them. When someone uses the term Thunder Clubs, I know for sure they don't know anything about the subject.

I'm quite sure that everyone here knows the difference between facts and opinions, and knows very well what the intentions are of the posters. Personally, I hold no malice towards any one group or type of boat, be it a sailing vessel or a canoe. The one thing all boats have in common is that they are on the water, and each and every one of them has a skipper who's responsibilities include;


Rule - 2, Responsibility, requires that due regard shall he given to all dangers of navigation and collision. This rule allows the mariner to depart from the rules as necessary to avoid the immediate danger of collision. This rule is often applied when the risk of collision between three or more vessels may occur. It is the mariner’s responsibility to take the necessary actions to avoid a collision.

Rule - 4 requires that every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout using sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the possible risk of collision.

Rule - 6 requires that 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. In determining safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account: the visibility, traffic density, maneuverability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability, at night the presence of background light such as from shore lights, the state of the wind, sea, current, proximity of navigational hazards, and the draft in relation to the available depth of water. Additionally, vessels with operational radar must use that radar to its fullest extent to determine the risk of collision.

Rule - 7 Risk of Collision, states that every vessel shall use all available means to determine if risk of collision exists; if there is any doubt, assume that it does exist. Risk of collision shall be deemed to exist if the compass bearing from your vessel to an approaching vessel does not change. Constant bearing decreasing range (CBDR) is the term we use to describe this situation. Collision risk may sometimes exist even when appreciable bearing change is evident, particularly when approaching a very large vessel or a vessel towing or when approaching a vessel at very close ranges

Rule 8, Action to Avoid Collision, provides specific guidance on how to maneuver your vessel so as to avoid a collision. Changes in course and speed shall be large enough so as to be readily apparent to the other vessel. If there is sufficient sea room, alteration of course alone may be the most effective action to avoid a close quarters situation provided that it is made in good time, is substantial and does not result in another close quarters situation. If necessary to avoid collision or allow more time to assess the situation, a vessel shall slacken her speed or take all way off by stopping or reversing her propulsion. A vessel which is required not to impede the passage of another vessel shall take early and substantial action to allow sufficient sea room for the passage of the other vessel.

Rule 9, Narrow Channels, states that a vessel proceeding along the course of a narrow channel or fairway shall keep as near to the outer limit of the channel which lies on her starboard (right) side as is safe and practicable, A vessel less than 20 meters in length or sailing vessel shall not impede the passage of a vessel, which can safely navigate only within the narrow channel.

Rule 14, Head-On Situation, states that vessels which are approaching head-on shall alter course to starboard so each will pass port to port.

Rule 15, Crossing Situation, states that when two power driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other vessel on her starboard side shall keep out of the way, and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel.



Our waterways have been successfully shared by all that have the courtesy and respect to understand that they are not the only people on the water, and they must abide by certain rules of the road. These rules are for everyone, not just some boats or some people.

[VtSteve]

My memory is just fine APS. I was so harsh in my criticism of the NWZ speeder that I think even BI thought I was a little overboard, so to speak :laugh: I would have him kicked off the lake and also spend a few days or more behind bars. Spin that.

I'm also very well aware of the alcohol problems on the waterways. I've repeatedly mentioned them, and have been repeatedly tromped on by some SL supporters for it. I mentioned many times that most of the accidents you speak of involve excessive alcohol consumption, but many boaters, not just in any one group. If anyone on this forum remembers otherwise, please chime in.

APS, you're a smart guy for sure. Is there any reason we can't have real adult conversations without you spinning and trying to paint people in a bad light? If you can't even address what I have actually said, it must not fit your ongoing agenda. This is the point where I will stand by what I have posted. There are thousands of views on these threads, so there must be thousands of folks that well know what I have stated, and what I stand for. I'll let your insinuations stand for what they are as well.

[RANGER CANOE CO]

Grey hair, probably been riding forever on Winni. :look:

[gtagrip]

Grey hair, probably been riding forever on Winni. :look:

That's a real big/fast boat to have on the lake. Doesn't it belong on the ocean? :rolleye2:

[ApS]

:offtopic:

...still...

My memory is just fine APS. I was so harsh in my criticism of the NWZ speeder...I would have him kicked off the lake and also spend a few days or more behind bars.
Your primary objection was his "fleeing the NHMP". (An easy charge to beat, especially when your noisy boat is a 130-MPH Outer-Limits ocean-racer). :eek:

Is there any reason we can't have real adult conversations without you spinning and trying to paint people in a bad light?...I mentioned many times that most of the accidents you speak of involve excessive alcohol consumption, but many boaters, not just in any one group.
There's one group that regards "risk" so dismissively that—in their own minds—alcohol doesn't increase their own personal risk at all. :eek2:

Sadly, they only wake up after impacting the lives of others. :(

Who cares about all those lesser boats, going who-knows-where?
:confused:

I'll let your insinuations stand for what they are as well.
It's no insinuation to see you've "cherry-picked" USCG regulations, so we're not burdened here with having to review the dangers over-sized boats pose to so many others on this inland lake—with its 253 scattered islands. :(

Completely false statement. Besides myself OCD has posted a few informative posts. But here we go with facts again those just don't seem to matter to you guys?:confused:
Your link didn't include OCD, who I consider one of your little, but noisy, group—anyway. :rolleye2:

Grey hair, probably been riding forever on Winni.
I've built three wood boats—and owned four.

With every turn of a brass screw and the driving of every bronze boat nail, you watch as the curves come together and eventually you refer to your wood boat as "her" or "she". :love:

Nobody respects life on the water more than someone who has blood, skin and sweat in the varnishing, inspecting, repair and painting of the wood boat they have built themselves.

But on the lake, there are too few who can say that today—with their boats and credit—in this "Age of Plastic". :(

Let them keep digging their own graves - they look more and more rediculous every day.
I think you meant to write ridiculous. :emb:

It's amazing how these "industry" supporters of the SL and WINFABS earn their millions in the hospitality industry, especially by selling alcohol. I can just see these businesspeople swallowing hard, thinking how much they hate the "THUNDER BOAT COWBOYS" while they're depositing all this money in the bank.
Sorry...

...We had no idea your group was so important. :(

[sunset on the dock]

From today's LDS:


Letters
Take a look at YouTube video of boat traffic in Barber Pole channel
Dec 08, 2010 12:00 am
To the editor,

I was pleased to read Michael Kitch's article in the December 3 edition covering the establishment of a No Wake Zone (NWZ) in the Barber Pole channel in Tuftonboro. As some of your readers may be aware, many of the Barber Pole residents were surprised and disappointed by the N.H. Department of Safety's reversal of its ruling last month, after citing safety and erosion concerns in their ruling earlier this summer. It was argued by our attorney at the October rehearing that the rules for legitimacy of signatures are vague, ambiguous, and confusing.

During the previous attempt to establish a NWZ in the summer of 2008, a video of some of the boating chaos in the 390' channel between buoy #17 and shore was recorded. The link to the video is: http://youtu.be/2F5Ljbskh_o

I urge your readers to view the footage for themselves to understand why the Department of Safety determined that "There is not sufficient availability and practicality of enforcement" to ensure safety in the channel absent no-wake limitations.

C. Clark

Tuftonboro

[steve c]

I qoute from the Decision and Order dated July 30 2010,

"The video, presented in support of an appeal of the
2008 denial was not persuasive"

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/hearings/compendium/watercraft/watercraft2010.html



Clearly the video was created for a desired effect. The green kayak was clearly part of the cast and who knows how many others were involved!
Any one can create a video to support any point being made. That is why the State deemed it "Inconclusive" Nice Try Christy Clark

[Seaplane Pilot]

:offtopic:

...still...


Your primary objection was his "fleeing the NHMP". (An easy charge to beat, especially when your noisy boat is a 130-MPH Outer-Limits ocean-racer). :eek:


There's one group that regards "risk" so dismissively that—in their own minds—alcohol doesn't increase their own personal risk at all. :eek2:

Sadly, they only wake up after impacting the lives of others. :(

Who cares about all those lesser boats, going who-knows-where?
:confused:


It's no insinuation to see you've "cherry-picked" USCG regulations, so we're not burdened here with having to review the dangers over-sized boats pose to so many others on this inland lake—with its 253 scattered islands. :(


Your link didn't include OCD, who I consider one of your little, but noisy, group—anyway. :rolleye2:


I've built three wood boats—and owned four.

With every turn of a brass screw and the driving of every bronze boat nail, you watch as the curves come together and eventually you refer to your wood boat as "her" or "she". :love:

Nobody respects life on the water more than someone who has blood, skin and sweat in the varnishing, inspecting, repair and painting of the wood boat they have built themselves.

But on the lake, there are too few who can say that today—with their boats and credit—in this "Age of Plastic". :(


I think you meant to write ridiculous. :emb:


Sorry...

...We had no idea your group was so important. :(

Thank you for correcting my spelling error - quite nice of you! By the way, "KWI" (Kayaking While Intoxicated) is also against the law.

[sunset on the dock]

I qoute from the Decision and Order dated July 30 2010,

"The video, presented in support of an appeal of the
2008 denial was not persuasive"

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/hearings/compendium/watercraft/watercraft2010.html



Clearly the video was created for a desired effect. The green kayak was clearly part of the cast and who knows how many others were involved!
Any one can create a video to support any point being made. That is why the State deemed it "Inconclusive" Nice Try Christy Clark

Interesting first post! Among the appellants I noticed quite a few SBONH people but interestingly enough one that looks like it could possibly be you...speaking of being able "to suppport any point being made"...not that anyone has any bias of their own here. :)
My point: Are you related to C. Clark ? It would be an ironic twist...I can see the headline now..."Barber Pole Couple to Divorce over Disagreement on NO Wake Zone".:emb::eek:

[steve c]

We are still together...........I'm the one in the green kayak trying to create
unsafe conditions for the camera!:laugh:

[Dave R]

I could not sit through the whole video, it was too shaky. Would have been much easier to watch and more informative if the zoom was backed way out. By zooming in so much it was impossible to see the big picture.

Looked busy, but I didn't see anything that looked truly unsafe. Might have been a few 150' violations, but it was really hard to tell with the zoom being changed too much.

I liked that motorboats were passing behind the sailboat.

Does anyone have any quality video of typical weekend traffic there?

[Yosemite Sam]

I could not sit through the whole video, it was too shaky. Would have been much easier to watch and more informative if the zoom was backed way out. By zooming in so much it was impossible to see the big picture.

Looked busy, but I didn't see anything that looked truly unsafe. Might have been a few 150' violations, but it was really hard to tell with the zoom being changed too much.

I liked that motorboats were passing behind the sailboat.

Does anyone have any quality video of typical weekend traffic there?

You are right Dave R,

All that time and effort to create a video and then to be done with such sloppy creativity....unbelievable...this video does not help their effort to show the conditions at the BP! IMHO it just creates more hard feelings between the two groups.

[ishoot308]

That video is a joke at best. It's like Darth Vader meets the Blair Witch Project!

It's zoomed in so much to make boats look closer and going faster than they really are. It is very apparent this video was made to falsely represent the issue.

Dan

[hazelnut]

Re-post from earlier


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNPvKdE3HHE

Kayaking and Canoeing on a Saturday Morning:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3CK7impBxM

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Guess What??

Tom Hilbink and his non-resident friends are at it again. According to the Laconia Daily Sun, www.laconiadailysun.com, he filed a petition last week for a no-wake zone at the Barber Pole.

What can be done to keep this agitator from making life miserable for so many boaters? Obviously, many of us will attend any locally held public hearings this summer, but it is imperative that we all are kept informed. Can someone get a copy of the new petition so that we have plenty of time to thoroughly investigate all the signers?

[fatlazyless]

Guess What??

Tom Hilbink and his non-resident friends are at it again. According to the Laconia Daily Sun, www.laconiadailysun.com, he filed a petition last week for a no-wake zone at the Barber Pole.

From the last paragraph of the news report, it says that signers of the petition can be either Tuftonboro residents or property owners, so signing the petition is not just restricted to residents which is an intelligent rule.

Seems REASONABLE & PRUDENT that the local island property owners should be able to sign on to the petition...........doesn't it!

[Sue Doe-Nym]

It would, except that last time they had a lot of non-property owners sign the petition, as I recall.

[Pineedles]

SBONH protected the rights of those living near the Barber Pole and all Winnipesaukee boaters the last time. It will be up to the residents to decide what they want to do with this (5th?) challenge to their rights. Your voice counts! Let the Gov't people know what you want! If you want a no wake zone, let them know. If you don't want a no wake zone let them know!:D

[lawn psycho]

I think the bar should be much higher for the number of signatures required before passing any law or new regulation on a State owned body of water.

Hopefully the petition is denied after the hearings. What sucks is most of the stuff being requested is not evidence based but simple perceptions.

In Westbrook, ME there was a neighborhood up in arms about the speed limit. After some hub-bub the police did measurements and found the average speed was only 1-2 MPH above the limit. The existing speed limit stayed......

Given how wakes a generated from boats getting off and going onto plane the cure is worse than the disease. However, if it's really not wakes they are after then of course we all know why someone would could possibly want a no-wake zone....

[Pineedles]

Looks like there is a disagreement as to the validity of the petitioner signatures in the latest petition for a no wake zone.

[ishoot308]

Looks like there is a disagreement as to the validity of the petitioner signatures in the latest petition for a no wake zone.

What else is new! Wasn't this the same problem last time? Maybe the town should review the petitions first before scheduling a hearing date. Seems like a lot of wasted time on an issue the majority does not want!

Dan

[gtagrip]

Looks like there is a disagreement as to the validity of the petitioner signatures in the latest petition for a no wake zone.

Why am I not surprised! :rolleye2:

[Pineedles]

It is amazing though that they would waste the time of all with unqualified signatures, AGAIN! Who are these people? Are they mentally challenged, or do they think the rest of the world is?

[gtagrip]

It is amazing though that they would waste the time of all with unqualified signatures, AGAIN! Who are these people? Are they mentally challenged, or do they think the rest of the world is?

Unfortunately, it's usually people like these that think the rest of the world are idiots! They think they can tip-toe through the grave yard and no one will notice. :cool:

[lawn psycho]

Sounds like we should be examing the no-rafting petition signatures as well. No doubt some of the singantures were probably invalid as well.

[ApS]

1) Yesterday at 6:24AM, a barge's front-end loader resumed its noisy construction on a breakwater across from our place: a few minutes later, a front-end loader started up on our shore, and proceeded to move some boulders around.

Because I start my day even earlier, the noise wasn't particularly bothersome to me; however, I would join my neighbors in opposition to construction noises before 8-AM. :look:

2) I don't boat at night, but if manufacturers started building "Ski-Craft" with navigation lights, I would join my neighbors in opposition to nav-lighted "Ski-Craft" after dark. :rolleye1:

3) If a NWZ petition is drawn up including signatures of folks who live there temporarily as renters, I would join in supporting those folks—though miles from me.

Looks like there is a disagreement as to the validity of the petitioner signatures in the latest petition for a no wake zone.When has this never been the case? :rolleye2:

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Why should short term seasonal renters have a say in this matter? Should we let these folks help decide what effects everyone? Perhaps APS would like it if the short term renters started a petition that would require all Tuftonboro island owners to install the latest DES approved septic systems and not allow any grandfathering.

Where in an RSA does it state that short term seasonal renters can sign petitions of this type?

[ApS]

Why should short term seasonal renters have a say in this matter? Should we let these folks help decide what effects everyone?
The RSA says "residents".

A renter is not only "a resident", but human beings who express concerns for their safety—and the safety of their family.

Where in an RSA does it state that short term seasonal renters can sign petitions of this type?
Here is the crux of the issue:

The Department of Safety ruled that the legal requirement may not have been met and has ordered the people calling for a no wake zone at Lake Winnipesaukee’s “Barber Pole” to show proof of residency. The department also ruled that proper legal notice was given via publication in the only statewide newspaper in New Hampshire.

I see it as a technicality: the major NWZ proponents could grant tiny percentages of ownership to each of his tenants, "legalizing" those signatures as listed in Town records. But why bother? :rolleye2:

Among other quality of life issues—this is a safety issue—and temporary residents bleed the same as other residents. :(

[Sue Doe-Nym]

APS, you must have been a political operative at some point based on your incredible ability to spin the facts. Where does an RSA state that SEASONAL SHORT TERM RENTERS are residents?

Your plea for quality of life is very appropriate and right in line with the need for a new RSA that would prohibit short term rentals on island properties unless there is a state approved septic system. Rental property septic systems are the most overloaded and can create severe health problems. As you certainly are aware, island rental properties, especially those close to the water, are extremely prone to discharging pollutants into the water from old overused septic systems. Since you seem to be so concerned about quality of life issues, please provide the date and DES approval number of your island septic system. This information will let us all know that you truly care about the lake and are not simply pushing your own personal agenda.

[jrc]

Using APS's logic, every hotel guest is a resident. Which means I can vote in about 37 elections. Maybe he believes we are all just citizens of the world.

[NH_boater]

Resident = to reside: to dwell permanently or continuously : occupy a place as one's legal domicile

[VitaBene]

The RSA says "residents".

A renter is not only "a resident", but human beings who express concerns for their safety—and the safety of their family.


Here is the crux of the issue:



I see it as a technicality: the major NWZ proponents could grant tiny percentages of ownership to each of his tenants, "legalizing" those signatures as listed in Town records. But why bother? :rolleye2:

Among other quality of life issues—this is a safety issue—and temporary residents bleed the same as other residents. :(

Interestingly, on the Wolfeboro forum you start a thread titled "Visitors" will make July 4th weekend scary. By "visitors" you refer to people from MA and other out of staters and discuss them with disdain. But now when you need them on your side you are very welcoming of their presence on the Lake!

Do you grant a tiny percentage of your place to renters?

See you Saturday!!

[Seaplane Pilot]

The RSA says "residents".

A renter is not only "a resident", but human beings who express concerns for their safety—and the safety of their family.


Here is the crux of the issue:



I see it as a technicality: the major NWZ proponents could grant tiny percentages of ownership to each of his tenants, "legalizing" those signatures as listed in Town records. But why bother? :rolleye2:

Among other quality of life issues—this is a safety issue—and temporary residents bleed the same as other residents. :(

Temporary residents are also more likely to obtain temporary boating licenses (by answering 10 stupid questions asked by greedy marina owners), and are also more likely to cause the "bleeding" that you so readily mentioned. Where's the outrage now? :confused::coolsm::(:yawn:

[gtagrip]

The RSA says "residents".

A renter is not only "a resident", but human beings who express concerns for their safety—and the safety of their family.


Here is the crux of the issue:



I see it as a technicality: the major NWZ proponents could grant tiny percentages of ownership to each of his tenants, "legalizing" those signatures as listed in Town records. But why bother? :rolleye2:

Among other quality of life issues—this is a safety issue—and temporary residents bleed the same as other residents. :(

:emb::emb::emb::emb:

[ApS]

Do you grant a tiny percentage of your place to renters?
No, but any alloted percentage would expire in 14 days! :D

APS, you must have been a political operative at some point based on your incredible ability to spin the facts.
:o I may have been in the company of lawyers for too long! :emb:

Temporary residents are also more likely to obtain temporary boating licenses (by answering 10 stupid questions asked by greedy marina owners), and are also more likely to cause the "bleeding" that you so readily mentioned. Where's the outrage now? :confused::coolsm::(:yawn:
1) Who hasn't rented a boat? :confused:

2) No amount of testing can correct "splitting the difference" at high speeds in Unsafe Passage situations. :(

3) Can one raise oneself up by demeaning others?

4) Can the questions be "stupid", if they are drawn from the test we take?

5) "Temporary" Resident? :confused: None of us are truly "Permanent": none of us are going to get out of "this one" alive. :(


Interestingly, on the Wolfeboro forum you start a thread titled "Visitors" will make July 4th weekend scary. By "visitors" you refer to people from MA and other out of staters and discuss them with disdain. But now when you need them on your side you are very welcoming of their presence on the Lake!
Nowhere did I mention MA visitors. :rolleye1:

Here, the "visitors" I refer to are merely trying to get from one side to the other at Barbers Pole—a narrow channel. :eek:

Where does an RSA state that SEASONAL SHORT TERM RENTERS are residents?
Nearly every boating renter is "short-term", on a lake with one season.

:eek2: What happened to,
"The lake is for everybody".

Your plea for quality of life is very appropriate and right in line with the need for a new RSA that would prohibit short term rentals on island properties unless there is a state approved septic system. Rental property septic systems are the most overloaded and can create severe health problems. As you certainly are aware, island rental properties, especially those close to the water, are extremely prone to discharging pollutants into the water from old overused septic systems. Since you seem to be so concerned about quality of life issues, please provide the date and DES approval number of your island septic system. This information will let us all know that you truly care about the lake and are not simply pushing your own personal agenda.
I believe that all the "NH-approved" septic systems are inadequate to protect the lake.

Using APS's logic, every hotel guest is a resident. Which means I can vote in about 37 elections. Maybe he believes we are all just citizens of the world.
I don't think there are any hotels at Barbers Pole channel. :rolleye2:

[OCDACTIVE]

Just a quick reminder so "ALL" interested parties involved can be heard. The hearing for the new Barbers Pole No Wake petition is this coming Saturday at The Tuftonboro Meeting house at 12 noon.

The first issue at hand will be to validate the petitioners. Apparently there has been questions posed to the Dept. of Safety to the validity of those on this petition. If the petition is found to be valid then a public hearing will immediately follow.

Regardless of what side you are on. This is your chance to be heard. You do not have to be a Tuftonboro resident or land owner to be heard at the hearing. Anyone with an opinion can testify.

This is the 4th attempt in the past decade to try to pass the NWZ. Hopefully if enough people on both sides of the issue attend and testify it will allow for enough information that a decision can be ruled on once and for all.

Here is your chance to be heard. Speak now or forever hold your peace!

[MAXUM]

The RSA says "residents".

A renter is not only "a resident", but human beings who express concerns for their safety—and the safety of their family.




:emb: That's the most absurd thing I think I have seen to date posted on this forum.

APS what planet are you from?

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Can anyone report on this afternoons public hearing?

[OCDACTIVE]

Can anyone report on this afternoons public hearing?

While I did not attend I did speak with some individuals who did. So please do not quote me.

First the attorneys on both sides testified and the validity of the petitioners were discussed due to an issue of land trusts and trustees.

There were approx 90 in attendence. 70 Against the NWZ 20 in favor. Apparently the majority of the 20 were from the same 2 families.

The testimoney was the same as last year. Those in favor claimed safety issues i.e. can not swim in the channel, kayak etc.

Those against cited no accidents and claimed it was two families that rent their cottages that want to make it more condusive to their renters to transverse the channel. Also why should 2 families who are not there the majority of the time dictate how thousands of boaters should use the barbers pole.

A decision was not given.

However on a side note, The Marine Patrol did take a position and filed with the committee "Against" the need for a NWZ in the channel.

Personally after speaking with those who were at the hearing and those of the MP. I believe that the ruling for the 4th time will be against.

Hopefully, either way, the issue will be finally put to rest.

[VitaBene]

While I did not attend I did speak with some individuals who did. So please do not quote me.

First the attorneys on both sides testified and the validity of the petitioners were discussed due to an issue of land trusts and trustees.

There were approx 90 in attendence. 70 Against the NWZ 20 in favor. Apparently the majority of the 20 were from the same 2 families.

The testimoney was the same as last year. Those in favor claimed safety issues i.e. can not swim in the channel, kayak etc.

Those against cited no accidents and claimed it was two families that rent their cottages that want to make it more condusive to their renters to transverse the channel. Also why should 2 families who are not there the majority of the time dictate how thousands of boaters should use the barbers pole.

A decision was not given.

However on a side note, The Marine Patrol did take a position and filed with the committee "Against" the need for a NWZ in the channel.

Personally after speaking with those who were at the hearing and those of the MP. I believe that the ruling for the 4th time will be against.

Hopefully, either way, the issue will be finally put to rest.

With one exception... One of the 5 people that spoke in favor of the NWZ (16 spoke against it) stated one reason as "you don't want to be back here again next year". So unfortunately, if the NWZ is denied, the supporters will petition again next year for a NWZ.

[lawn psycho]

I rarely go through the BP so not direct dog in this fight. However, what I see is a significant problem with how petitions are allowed to be filed.

The waters on the lake are property of the state, much like I-95, I-89, I-93, Rt 1, etc.

What the NWZ and NRZ do is no different than having 25 people who have a rental unit along a highway and requesting the state to lower the speed limit to reduce noise so they can increase the value of their house.
In fact, the legal standards are so subjective to grant or deny a petition for NWZs and NRZs that it is assinine. In fact, the NRZs can be challenged on constitutional grounds.

There is no way anyone can justify in an objective manner the number of people impacted versus the small number of people who gain whatever perceived advantage they are trying to gain. That standard alone should make it impossible to get an approval for any of these things!

And what happens when this family sells the rental during an up market and then the next buyer doesn't want it?

NRZs and NWZs are not a compromise but a self-serving means for those who bought on the lake to infringe on the masses who use the lake.. If you own near a sandbar or high boat traffic area, learn to deal with it and make the best of it. Asking the rest of the lake to cave to your wishes because you did not buy an area you prefer is not everyone elses's problem.

And for the record, I lived near a busy road in a prior house. I got a major deal on the house when we bought it. At sale we had to pass the savings to the next owner to move it despite being the best house in the hood that showed like a model home. So I speak from experience.....

[MAXUM]

I rarely go through the BP so not direct dog in this fight. However, what I see is a significant problem with how petitions are allowed to be filed.

The waters on the lake are property of the state, much like I-95, I-89, I-93, Rt 1, etc.

What the NWZ and NRZ do is no different than having 25 people who have a rental unit along a highway and requesting the state to lower the speed limit to reduce noise so they can increase the value of their house.
In fact, the legal standards are so subjective to grant or deny a petition for NWZs and NRZs that it is assinine. In fact, the NRZs can be challenged on constitutional grounds.

There is no way anyone can justify in an objective manner the number of people impacted versus the small number of people who gain whatever perceived advantage they are trying to gain. That standard alone should make it impossible to get an approval for any of these things!

And what happens when this family sells the rental during an up market and then the next buyer doesn't want it?

NRZs and NWZs are not a compromise but a self-serving means for those who bought on the lake to infringe on the masses who use the lake.. If you own near a sandbar or high boat traffic area, learn to deal with it and make the best of it. Asking the rest of the lake to cave to your wishes because you did not buy an area you prefer is not everyone elses's problem.

And for the record, I lived near a busy road in a prior house. I got a major deal on the house when we bought it. At sale we had to pass the savings to the next owner to move it despite being the best house in the hood that showed like a model home. So I speak from experience.....

While I totally agree with what you've said, the bottom line is the squeaky wheel gets the oil and if these people persist I bet one day they will get their way, right or wrong it seems as though that's the way it goes. What really bothers me about this is you buy in a location like this deal with the consequences, don't like it move. It's like me buying a piece of property on an island then start petitioning the state to put in a bridge to it.

Far as I'm concerned I think a new petition should circulate that caps the number of petitions that can be filed within a certain time frame for the same thing so that time and effort is not wasted re-hashing the same things over and over again. I mean really - this is pathetic. If the MP indeed did take a position against said NWZ that says a lot.

[lawn psycho]

While I totally agree with what you've said, the bottom line is the squeaky wheel gets the oil and if these people persist I bet one day they will get their way, right or wrong it seems as though that's the way it goes. What really bothers me about this is you buy in a location like this deal with the consequences, don't like it move. It's like me buying a piece of property on an island then start petitioning the state to put in a bridge to it.

Far as I'm concerned I think a new petition should circulate that caps the number of petitions that can be filed within a certain time frame for the same thing so that time and effort is not wasted re-hashing the same things over and over again. I mean really - this is pathetic. If the MP indeed did take a position against said NWZ that says a lot.

Maxum, if Marine Patrol does not take action based on the sour grapes comment from the NWZ proponent, it's time for a new director.

Repeated filings is blatant abuse of the system and MP should be already drafting new language to eliminate such behavior. They should also draft specific language on how to rescind the NWZ and NRZ areas as well.

If the person thinks that pouting is the answer and MP lets that influence the decision than it's another reason to get rid of the director.

[MAXUM]

Maxum, if Marine Patrol does not take action based on the sour grapes comment from the NWZ proponent, it's time for a new director.

Repeated filings is blatant abuse of the system and MP should be already drafting new language to eliminate such behavior. They should also draft specific language on how to rescind the NWZ and NRZ areas as well.

If the person thinks that pouting is the answer and MP lets that influence the decision than it's another reason to get rid of the director.

But is that really a unilateral decision the director can make? If a petition is filed and it meets all the legal requirements he/she may not have a choice but to go through the motions. I don't speak from a position of authority on this only wonder if there is any difference between this and say getting a question on the ballot sponsored by the electorate? Seems like the process is similar.

[lawn psycho]

Maxum, it's an adminstrative hearing. Every criteria listed is subjective. Read the requirements and you can quickly see how there are no lines in the sand.

Where are the engineering studies? Surveys? Depth charts? etc. From what I have seen most of the testimony is based on perception and not much more.

You have testimony largely against it. You have MP taking a no position on it.

It comes down to the opinion/discretion of the director. It's that simple.

Of course I am sure the petition filers may feel they can sue but they have an uphill battle. Courts are very reluctant to supersede the powers of governmental bodies. Given the subjective standards and a no vote from MP the filers have the burden to overcome if the director denies the petition.

Using your logic would imply just getting the signatures is automatic approval. That's not the case as the petitioners have the burden to prove the need for a NWZ. The reason why many of the petitions for NRZs and NWZs have gotten through in the past is they are done in February at local town halls so opposition is reduced significantly. Transparency does wonders.....

The DOS better get in front of this and get cooling off periods and NRZ/NWZ revocation petitions procedures written into the adminstrative rules.

The statement about holding their breath until they get what they want may very well come back to bite them.

[MAXUM]

Using your logic would imply just getting the signatures is automatic approval. That's not the case as the petitioners have the burden to prove the need for a NWZ. The reason why many of the petitions for NRZs and NWZs have gotten through in the past is they are done in February at local town halls so opposition is reduced significantly. Transparency does wonders.....



Not quite what I was implying, so let me re-phrase. I understand the ultimate decision is made by the Director, but if the proper paperwork is filed and signatures gathered is the Director obligated to hold an administrative hearing on the petition? Doesn't mean he/she has to approve it.

[jrc]

That's how I read the law:

270:12 Operating Restrictions. –
I. The commissioner of safety shall, after receiving a petition signed by 25 or more residents or property owners of each affected town or towns in which a lake, pond or river is located and after notice and hearing, at which it appears that the public interest requires, adopt rules...

"Shall" usually means he can't ignore the petition. He has to schedule the hearing quickly but he is not obligated to have the hearing in any hurry:

Saf-C 409.02 Scheduling of Hearing. The commissioner shall schedule a hearing within a reasonable period of time, but in no event more than 60 days after the date he received the request.

[Rusty]

Maxum, it's an adminstrative hearing. Every criteria listed is subjective. Read the requirements and you can quickly see how there are no lines in the sand.

Where are the engineering studies? Surveys? Depth charts? etc. From what I have seen most of the testimony is based on perception and not much more.

You have testimony largely against it. You have MP taking a no position on it.

It comes down to the opinion/discretion of the director. It's that simple.

Of course I am sure the petition filers may feel they can sue but they have an uphill battle. Courts are very reluctant to supersede the powers of governmental bodies. Given the subjective standards and a no vote from MP the filers have the burden to overcome if the director denies the petition.

Using your logic would imply just getting the signatures is automatic approval. That's not the case as the petitioners have the burden to prove the need for a NWZ. The reason why many of the petitions for NRZs and NWZs have gotten through in the past is they are done in February at local town halls so opposition is reduced significantly. Transparency does wonders.....

The DOS better get in front of this and get cooling off periods and NRZ/NWZ revocation petitions procedures written into the adminstrative rules.

The statement about holding their breath until they get what they want may very well come back to bite them.

How many meetings in NH have you been to? How much testimony have you heard in regards to any petition that was filed and heard concerning Lake Winni?
Have you visited these areas and talked to the petitioners to get a face to face view point or do you just want everything to be your way or the highway?
I think you want to Lake Winni be a free for all and to heck with what the NH residents want.
Show me some evidence that you have done any research into any petition and then you might have some credibility.

[lawn psycho]

That's how I read the law:

270:12 Operating Restrictions. –
I. The commissioner of safety shall, after receiving a petition signed by 25 or more residents or property owners of each affected town or towns in which a lake, pond or river is located and after notice and hearing, at which it appears that the public interest requires, adopt rules...

"Shall" usually means he can't ignore the petition. He has to schedule the hearing quickly but he is not obligated to have the hearing in any hurry:

Saf-C 409.02 Scheduling of Hearing. The commissioner shall schedule a hearing within a reasonable period of time, but in no event more than 60 days after the date he received the request.

But the petition must also state the reason and impacts. Again, just applying with signatures does not imply carte blanc approved. You posted the hearing but did not post the criteria so be considered.

Otherwise, why even have the hearing if all you need is the validated signatures?

Look at the DOS compendium and you will see petitions denied over the years. Not just on procedural grounds.

The petitioners must show good reason, not just wish it so. Trust me, shorefront owners would only dream to have it be as easy as collecting signatures.

[Rusty]

But the petition must also state the reason and impacts. Again, just applying with signatures does not imply carte blanc approved. You posted the hearing but did not post the criteria so be considered.

Otherwise, why even have the hearing if all you need is the validated signatures?
Look at the DOS compendium and you will see petitions denied over the years. Not just on procedural grounds.

The petitioners must show good reason, not just wish it so. Trust me, shorefront owners would only dream to have it be as easy as collecting signatures.

Please go to a hearing about any petition concerning Lake Winni and then get back to us about how much "good reason" the people who signed the petition had.
That's all I'm asking of you.
Then you can get up and give a nice presentation about how everything should be done. I'm sure we will read about it in the news.

Thank You

[Seaplane Pilot]

How many meetings in NH have you been to? How much testimony have you heard in regards to any petition that was filed and heard concerning Lake Winni?
Have you visited these areas and talked to the petitioners to get a face to face view point or do you just want everything to be your way or the highway?
I think you want to Lake Winni be a free for all and to heck with what the NH residents want.
Show me some evidence that you have done any research into any petition and then you might have some credibility.

Thankfully, guys like Lawn Psycho have the fortitude to speak up and stand up against people that want to practice isolationism and close the lake to all but themselves. We need more people like him rather than the pushovers like the state legislators. Keep up the good work, Lawn Psycho.

[gtagrip]

Please go to a hearing about any petition concerning Lake Winni and then get back to us about how much "good reason" the people who signed the petition had.
That's all I'm asking of you.
Then you can get up and give a nice presentation about how everything should be done. I'm sure we will read about it in the news.

Thank You

I all for hearings/petitions regarding the lake. But, when the signatures are not of "legal" residents of NH, I don't think so!

[jrc]

OK, when you get to the hearing, assuming the petition was not filed in a fraudulent manner, this lists what they should consider. You don't win automatically just because you got 25 names listed:

Saf-C 409.04 Criteria for Review.
(a) The commissioner shall, after the hearing, adopt rules of the type authorized by RSA 270:12 if it appears that, consistent with RSA 270:1, II, the rule shall provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, taking into consideration the factors in (b) below.
(b) In determining whether to adopt such rules the commissioner shall consider the following:
(1) The size of the body of water or portion thereof for which rulemaking action is being considered;
(2) The effect which adopting or not adopting the rule(s) would have upon:
a. Public safety;
b. The maintenance of residential, recreational, and scenic values;
c. The variety of uses of such body of water or portion thereof;
d. The environment and water quality; and
e. Threatened and endangered species.
(3) The number of people affected, either directly or indirectly, by adopting or not adopting the rule(s); and
(4) The availability and practicality of enforcement of the rule(s).

[lawn psycho]

Now you see what I was referring to as the subjective nature of the criteria. So even if someone presents data, what is the threshold they must meet? Very poorly written from a legal standpoint......

What is important for people to notice is the requirements are all to be considered, not just cherry pick one.

In a past request for a no-rafting zone people have claimed water quality issues. In fact UNH was involved with the testing "analysis" and it was bad, bad, science. Unfortunately as happens in meetings when things get technical people hear fancy terms thrown out and don't have the training to challenge or confirm claims.

Bottomline is the director must consider all of the critieria.

Given item #3, I don't see how the NWZ would pass muster. Add in the no vote from MP and I think this petition should get a torpedo up the tailpipe:rolleye2:

[MAXUM]

Now you see what I was referring to as the subjective nature of the criteria. So even if someone presents data, what is the threshold they must meet? Very poorly written from a legal standpoint......

What is important for people to notice is the requirements are all to be considered, not just cherry pick one.



It may be subjective, but at the same time it is not always effective to bog down the decision making process with immovable criteria either. There comes a point in time where to much of that creates a situation where the people who are entrusted to make these kinds of judgement calls end up hog tied. In other words at least how I look at it, the only way to reasonably govern is to create a framework that provides the flexibility for decision making on the part of the Director and if need be prior decisions can be used (as in a court of law) to help establish some precedent for or against. There is no way to get to any level of detail legislatively because there are such massive variations in each case that could be presented. Not to drag up an already beaten subject or hijack the thread here, but this is why I thought there was no real need for a SL since there were already laws on the books that gave the MP the tools necessary to deal with irresponsible operation, speed included. It did however require the MP to make a judgement call.

I guess the way I look at it people such as the Director are placed in these positions to make these decisions and one would think they are there because they have the necessary experience to be well versed enough to do this successfully based on the facts present weighed against the criteria spelled out above.

The requirements listed are not all encompassing or at least that's the way I read it. Some of those may not be applicable, so if one or two doesn't apply does that mean the petition is without merit? I think not, just as some may have more weight then other do. For example if a petition is filed solely on the basis of a perceived safety issue there is absolutely no reason for that to be invalidated. However I do agree that with any evidence presented there is perception passed off as fact and fact dismissed as perception. This is where the DOS needs to be careful to evaluate the petition and accompanying testimony. Like a judge and jury separate the fact from fiction ultimately resulting in a decision that is in the best interest of the public. We can have neither a free for all out there, nor a bunch of land owners locking the lake up like it belongs to them.

Maybe we all should realize that we're all human and not perfect. In making these decisions there are winners and losers - just the way it is. I'd prefer that the DOS be given the benefit of the doubt and thus enough freedom to make judgement calls without the burden of undo restrictions. I have enough faith in the DOS to be confident they will not pass this NWZ because at no level does it make any sense whatsoever.

[MAXUM]

Now you see what I was referring to as the subjective nature of the criteria. So even if someone presents data, what is the threshold they must meet? Very poorly written from a legal standpoint......

What is important for people to notice is the requirements are all to be considered, not just cherry pick one.



It may be subjective, but at the same time it is not always effective to bog down the decision making process with immovable criteria either. There comes a point in time where to much of that creates a situation where the people who are entrusted to make these kinds of judgement calls end up hog tied. In other words at least how I look at it, the only way to reasonably govern is to create a framework that provides the flexibility for decision making on the part of the Director and if need be prior decisions can be used (as in a court of law) to help establish some precedent for or against. There is no way to get to any level of detail legislatively because there are such massive variations in each case that could be presented. Not to drag up an already beaten subject or hijack the thread here, but this is why I thought there was no real need for a SL since there were already laws on the books that gave the MP the tools necessary to deal with irresponsible operation, speed included. It did however require the MP to make a judgement call.

I guess the way I look at it people such as the Director are placed in these positions to make these decisions and one would think they are there because they have the necessary experience to be well versed enough to do this successfully based on the facts present weighed against the criteria spelled out above.

The requirements listed are not all encompassing or at least that's the way I read it. Some of those may not be applicable, so if one or two doesn't apply does that mean the petition is without merit? I think not, just as some may have more weight then other do. For example if a petition is filed solely on the basis of a perceived safety issue there is absolutely no reason for that to be invalidated. However I do agree that with any evidence presented there is perception passed off as fact and fact dismissed as perception. This is where the DOS needs to be careful to evaluate the petition and accompanying testimony. Like a judge and jury separate the fact from fiction ultimately resulting in a decision that is in the best interest of the public. We can have neither a free for all out there, nor a bunch of land owners locking the lake up like it belongs to them.

Maybe we all should realize that we're all human and not perfect. In making these decisions there are winners and losers - just the way it is. I'd prefer that the DOS be given the benefit of the doubt and thus enough freedom to make judgement calls without the burden of undo restrictions. I have enough faith in the DOS to be confident they will not pass this NWZ because at no level does it make any sense whatsoever.

[lawn psycho]

Maxum, on principle I agree you don't want things rigid. I was hoping a decision was rendered by this point...

However, this situation is the classic reason why rigid standards are necessary. The NWZ has been brought forward multiple times now. You have a homeowner/attorney who thinks he can manipulate the system to get a result he wants. The subjective nature is rife with opportunity for people like the petition initiator to take advantage of poorly written standards.

My personal opinion is there should be no ability for homeowners to file a 25 signature petition and alter boat passage on the lake. Have NWZs near all public docs, make NWZs at obvious narrow channels like at the Weirs and Hole in the Wall, etc. If there is enough space for two boats to safely pass, then that's the way it is. Spot zoning via NRZs and NWZs just keeps proliferating and based on what? "I bought this house here and I don't want you driving or anchoring near me". That's the reality of what is happening.

The lake has fixed shorelines. You can set max limits for raft locations and mooring fields. It's not hard to make engineering evaluation for where NWZs are needed or not and case closed. From there, remove the homeowner petition languauge. *GASP* Yes, it is that simple!

Could you imagine if homeowners everywhere could just get together in town and with 25 signatures have an impact on vehicles on state highways and roads? I'd call that insanity. Why is the lake any different?

What is interesting is how DOS will handle the previous approval and now with majority siding against it they will have to craft languauge why to deny it know. DOS is in a box, however it appears the real desire or lack thereof for a NWZ is truly known. I'm sure the petition initiator will cry but this NWZ is screaming for a denial. Having traveled through the BP I don't see the need for it.

I will also be posting why I think the 150 ft rule for two passing vessels causes more problems than it solves. This case adds to why I believe it too be the case. People are hard wired to think it solves problems, I used to be one of them but my observations show otherwise.

[MAXUM]

Hey LP I just thought before I comment on your posting that it's great to have a reasonable and civil exchange of opinion and ideas. I think not only for myself but for any casual observer here this kind of discussion is extremely useful and beneficial. Plus you do bring up some very interesting points worth thinking about. It's truly unfortunate this is not always the case....:rolleye2:

OK on to a few of your comments.

However, this situation is the classic reason why rigid standards are necessary. The NWZ has been brought forward multiple times now. You have a homeowner/attorney who thinks he can manipulate the system to get a result he wants. The subjective nature is rife with opportunity for people like the petition initiator to take advantage of poorly written standards.

My personal opinion is there should be no ability for homeowners to file a 25 signature petition and alter boat passage on the lake.

I personally would prefer not to see the standards changed for a number of reasons, however as you and I have both pointed out and agree the continued effort to bring forth the same petition should be capped/limited. This is a really hard one to deal with and yes with the right legal representation and deep pockets any system can be abused, but you really don't want to take the ability for the regular folks to be able to have their voices heard either. No matter if the rules were to change or not people with deep pockets and lawyers always seem to get heard, I think making the standards to strict is not going to serve the intended purpose from my point of view anyways.

Have NWZs near all public docs, make NWZs at obvious narrow channels like at the Weirs and Hole in the Wall, etc. If there is enough space for two boats to safely pass, then that's the way it is. Spot zoning via NRZs and NWZs just keeps proliferating and based on what? "I bought this house here and I don't want you driving or anchoring near me". That's the reality of what is happening.

This I do agree with you on -but also keep in mind that things do change over time and what may not be a problem now could be later on. If we were having this discussion 50 years ago based on the use of the lake back then it's a far picture today so are the laws. Any attempts to make spot zoning as you say overtly in the interest of the abbuters is an entirely different story. So I really don't see a good way to solve this problem other than to leave it as is and let the Director and DOS make the decision based on what they think is in the best interest of the public.

Could you imagine if homeowners everywhere could just get together in town and with 25 signatures have an impact on vehicles on state highways and roads? I'd call that insanity. Why is the lake any different?

That's easily explained. highways are designed and routed based on the design of engineers and where it makes the most sense to put them. How much money is spent on studying this stuff floating plans and determining the best solution? The lake, well that was naturally formed so it is what it is.

What is interesting is how DOS will handle the previous approval and now with majority siding against it they will have to craft languauge why to deny it know.

I think the decision to keep that area as is will prevail.

I will also be posting why I think the 150 ft rule for two passing vessels causes more problems than it solves.

I'll be interested to read your thoughts on this one because I believe this is a very important safety measure. Not that anyone necessarily adhere's to it, but having it on the books and having the discussion as to why it exists is a very useful in that it bring attention to people about safe passage and also the importance of understanding the affects of the wake you leave behind.

[chipj29]

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12897

Any bets on how long it takes for an appeal (or a new petition) to be filed?

[OCDACTIVE]

Safe Boaters of New Hampshire
“To promote safety through education and effective legislation”
http://www.SBONH.ORG

No Wake Zone at Lake Winnipesaukee’s Barber Pole rejected

Practicality of the restriction called not reasonable or sensible


For Immediate Release:



Safe Boaters of New Hampshire is applauding the decision by John Barthelmes, Commissioner of Safety in rejecting the latest attempt at restriction of New Hampshire’s public waterways by imposing an unnecessary speed restriction on thousands of boaters traveling through Lake Winnipesaukee’s Barber Pole located near Cow Island.

In his decision Commissioner Barthelmes noted that a No Wake Zone will contribute to a bottleneck of vessels within the channel of the Barber Pole and possibly contribute to boaters selecting alternate routes that will take longer to traverse and for smaller craft, in more open-water conditions, more difficult to navigate. Bathelmes also wrote in his decision that a No Wake Zone in this main travel area will affect more people than the number of persons seeking the limitation of speed.

Rejection of the No Wake Zone was also supported by the NH Marine Patrol who provided statistical data collected over a period of years which continues to show that a majority of the few violations in the area are categorized as violation of the Safe Passage Laws and the most recent data shows a decline in these types of violations.

Lt. Tim Dunleavy of the Marine Patrol also noted that creating a No Wake Zone would contribute to shoreline erosion, damaged waterfowl nests and noise pollution adjacent to the proposed No Wake Zone’s boundaries. Commissioner Barthelmes ruled the practicality of a No Wake Zone in Barbers Pole is not reasonable or sensible in his denial of the petition.

Safe Boaters of New Hampshire supports the NH Marine Patrol and its findings of statistical fact and the decision of Commissioner Barthelmes in denying the No Wake Zone at the Barber Pole.

Given that this is the fifth time that a petition for a No Wake Zone at Barbers Pole has been denied, Safe Boaters of New Hampshire is calling on the supporters of the restriction to drop the issue and not call for yet another hearing in the future at additional taxpayer expense.

[lawn psycho]

I hope people read the comments in the decision. Prominent SL supporters stating negative things about 150 ft rule.

[hazelnut]

The majority of the residents along the Barbers Pole appreciate this decision. I'd like to thank SBONH for helping to publicize this hearing so that this decision could take place in the light of day. Unlike last years "cloak & dagger" hearing in which some neighbors lied to, and hid information about the existence of a hearing from others. They knew what we all knew that the vast majority are against a No Wake Zone. It has been proven as fact now.

[Belmont Resident]

Wow, not sure what’s going on and I’m not going to read into all the post to find out. But having traveled thru the area where the barber pole was and not finding it a NWZ was great. I finally backtracked far enough in this thread and saw that the ruling was reversed.
The trip from Glendale to Black Island was a lot easier without a NW zone.