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

[MRAB2]

I heard today that there is now a no wake zone though the Barber's Pole... What's up with that -How did that get passed so fast??? It seemed just last month there was light discussion now it's official???... Can anyone confirm?? I hope this is just a rumor that I am not spreading:emb:

[VitaBene]

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10413

Please see this thread, you will have to pick through some unrelated shrapnel but the info is there. It was approved and it is pretty large.

[chipj29]

It was discussed at length in this thread:
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10413

[topwater]

What a SAD state of affairs this Lake has turned into. Just a shame!! I see it going down and getting worse every single year, one way or the other. It is truely a shame what the people are doing to this, Once upon a time Great lake! Trying to make it a privatized personal pond is not the way to go.

[MJM]

Is the Barber Pole even there anymore? I went by where I thought it was, and didn't see it...

[BroadHopper]

Went through the Barber Pole area. No signs yet. I wonder if you have to wait til they post the signs or there is going to be a sneak attack! :eek:

Maybe Skip can clarify this situation as well as what infractions appear on our driver's record.

I had an infraction in NC last fall. In NC was unaware I was in a right turn only lane and did not turn right. The infraction appeared on my driver's record. I found out last spring when I got pulled over in Belmont NH because I had a rear tail light out. Instead of a defective tag, the officer fined me $62. The town must be really hurting! :rolleye1:

[DEJ]

What a SAD state of affairs this Lake has turned into. Just a shame!! I see it going down and getting worse every single year, one way or the other. It is truely a shame what the people are doing to this, Once upon a time Great lake! Trying to make it a privatized personal pond is not the way to go.

The following web site http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/hearings/aboutus.html
says the following about hearings: "the results are subject to appeal"

So if anyone is inclined I guess an appeal is allowed the way I read it.

[NoRegrets]

What a SAD state of affairs this Lake has turned into. Just a shame!! I see it going down and getting worse every single year, one way or the other. It is truely a shame what the people are doing to this, Once upon a time Great lake! Trying to make it a privatized personal pond is not the way to go.

Well said! I had a discussion last week with a globally experienced boater (owns property in Central Am. and sailed to places I can not pronounce or spell). He was recently boating somewhere off Massachusetts and he commented on how disappointing it is to have so many laws and restrictions on such a beautiful lake. The rules are crowding out common sense and boating etiquette. Now the flood gates are open to more and more limits. We are going for the technicality of law instead of intent so this process will continue until every square inch of the resource is requlated by constrictive rules. I will not dwell on or forcast the future but feel for the next generation that will not realize the open enjoyment that we have had in our lifetime.

I still plan to enjoy my weekends on Winnipesaukee and my weeks on this Forum!!!!

[Dave R]

The following web site http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/hearings/aboutus.html
says the following about hearings: "the results are subject to appeal"

So if anyone is inclined I guess an appeal is allowed the way I read it.

I imagine the folks that live by the Hole in the Wall and the gap between Little Bear and Long Island will be appealing...

Makes very little difference to me, I don't venture up that way very often and when I do, I often go though the Hole in Wall for fun or around the other side of Little Bear to avoid traffic, but I think it's sad that it's come to this.

Wonder how long it'll take milfoil to get a stronghold in the shallow parts of the NWZ once the wakes stop? I'm pretty sure milfoil does not tolerate boat wakes very well.

[neckdweller]

Is the Barber Pole even there anymore? I went by where I thought it was, and didn't see it...
I didn't go by this past weekend, but it wasn't there the past few weeks. I think it was last year that it was taken down for painting - it shouldn't need to be prettied up again so soon.

[pm203]

Went through the Barber Pole area. No signs yet. I wonder if you have to wait til they post the signs or there is going to be a sneak attack! :eek:

Maybe Skip can clarify this situation as well as what infractions appear on our driver's record.

I had an infraction in NC last fall. In NC was unaware I was in a right turn only lane and did not turn right. The infraction appeared on my driver's record. I found out last spring when I got pulled over in Belmont NH because I had a rear tail light out. Instead of a defective tag, the officer fined me $62. The town must be really hurting! :rolleye1:

Any infractions that you receive while boating can be fought so that not to appear on your driving record.

[HUH]

Dont understand why anyone would complain about this.. It gets a little tight in there at times.. This lake needs more no wake areas ..

[cowisl]

Dont understand why anyone would complain about this.. It gets a little tight in there at times.. This lake needs more no wake areas ..

I live right around the corner from the barbers pole. My family also has a place on the mainland next to the pole. If people followed the current rules (150') there would be no need for the no wake zone. Its amazing to me that people keep wanting more and more rules.

[4Fun]

Well said! I had a discussion last week with a globally experienced boater (owns property in Central Am. and sailed to places I can not pronounce or spell). He was recently boating somewhere off Massachusetts and he commented on how disappointing it is to have so many laws and restrictions on such a beautiful lake. The rules are crowding out common sense and boating etiquette. Now the flood gates are open to more and more limits. We are going for the technicality of law instead of intent so this process will continue until every square inch of the resource is requlated by constrictive rules. I will not dwell on or forcast the future but feel for the next generation that will not realize the open enjoyment that we have had in our lifetime.

I still plan to enjoy my weekends on Winnipesaukee and my weeks on this Forum!!!!

I still say everyone who thinks Winni is "Scary" should spend and afternoon ANYWHERE else on the water.

Went for a sail out of Newburyport a few weeks ago and as we were heading out of the narrow inlet The Harbor master passed us 30' to starboard going 25mph and Tow Boat US was 30' off port going 25MPH, At the same time....

We all waved to each other and had a good sail....

[jmen24]

I didn't go by this past weekend, but it wasn't there the past few weeks. I think it was last year that it was taken down for painting - it shouldn't need to be prettied up again so soon.

Its all these new LOW VoC paints that we are required to use in NH. They just don't last as long.:D

[sunset on the dock]

Dont understand why anyone would complain about this.. It gets a little tight in there at times.. This lake needs more no wake areas ..

I don't understand the complaints either. Some of the best times on my boat are at no wake speeds....sight seeing, conversing, etc. I can't understand the mentality where people feel a boat has only 2 speeds...stop and full throttle. And so many people go past the 2 little islands just 150' from shore...I felt sorry for the people on shore.

[VtSteve]

I don't understand the complaints either. Some of the best times on my boat are at no wake speeds....sight seeing, conversing, etc. I can't understand the mentality where people feel a boat has only 2 speeds...stop and full throttle. And so many people go past the 2 little islands just 150' from shore...I felt sorry for the people on shore.

Apparently, there's a lot to sort out in that area SOTD. I had never boated there much, so I've pretty much lost track of the layout in my mind. I'll have to defer to people that live and boat in that area, they seem to know it best. Some property owners there have mixed feelings, so I gather it's mostly a weekend thing, and mostly Saturdays at that. It's too bad so many boaters have built up an arrogance that outweighs whatever common sense and courtesy they ever had :(

I also don't see this as a speed issue. The vast majority of boaters can usually be found in the 25 mph to 35 mph range on any given day. That's usually my range as well. It's a fairly gentle speed range, and most boats can calmly, and safely, sightsee and boat in that range. People that cannot cruise safely at those speeds have no business being in a boat IMHO.

If you look at a previous post, perhaps in the other thread, you'll see what happened when a MP was present in the area. Just as on the roadways, people seem to immediately recall the laws and common courtesy when a LEO is around watching. This indicates to me that the problems in areas like these are caused by attitude, lack of common courtesy, and an arrogance that belies the freedom of the waterways. Areas where people complain about cars running lights and/or stop signs, are usually patrolled more often, LEO's on the lookout for offenders. They step up enforcement in trouble spots, they don't make the entire area a 25 mph school zone. Common sense.

[OCDACTIVE]

I have read many posts on this issue. I also have experienced some tight situations in the pole.

From what I have gathered and by those living there have posted (who I think have the best perspective on the matter is)

1. Speed has nothing to do with the wakes. We all know if you are on plain whether at 30 mph or 45 mph your wake is smaller then when you are going 20(ish) and transitioning between plowing and plaining speed.

2. the 150 foot safe passage rule needs to be enforced in the tighter areas. The no wake zone in this instance is placing a restricting year round on the area when it is rarely an issue even on the weekends.

3. Even property owners who are directly effected are mixed in whether this is needed or not. But from what I have read the only issue is large wakes. Not speed, not fear, not noise ONLY wakes... Since this is the case it is difficult to say a No wake will solve everyone's issue. As proven time and time again if a boat goes through the pole on plain there is little to no issue with a wake. However if boats are forced to come on and off plain those land owners immediately bordering where boats will always be slowing down and speeding up could be even more effected then the current situation.

I think this is a very tough issue and I personally have mixed feelings on this for I have seen it from both sides. But lets keep into context exactly what that problem is Large wakes nothing more.

[VitaBene]

I don't understand the complaints either. Some of the best times on my boat are at no wake speeds....sight seeing, conversing, etc. I can't understand the mentality where people feel a boat has only 2 speeds...stop and full throttle. And so many people go past the 2 little islands just 150' from shore...I felt sorry for the people on shore.

We spend at least half of our boating time running just in gear and doing as you noted- sightseeing, talking, etc.

There are other times when we just want to get to our destination and would like to be on plane (and creating little wake).

That is going to be a long NWZ and will likely cause others to be added or extended.

[Formula]

As mentioned above this very long NWZ will force more and more boats around the NWZ and most likely will add more traffic between Little bear and Long Island which is, I believe a much tighter spot than the Barber's pole area.

[Seaplane Pilot]

I don't understand the complaints either. Some of the best times on my boat are at no wake speeds....sight seeing, conversing, etc. I can't understand the mentality where people feel a boat has only 2 speeds...stop and full throttle. And so many people go past the 2 little islands just 150' from shore...I felt sorry for the people on shore.

You know what - you have every right to go no wake speed whenever and where ever you want. Nobody is arguing that point. However, not everyone feels the same as you do. Personally, I like about 2/3 throttle and am a safe captain at any speed.

[sunset on the dock]

That is going to be a long NWZ and will likely cause others to be added or extended.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. There are many tight areas where shore erosion and damage to boats is not the only issue. And as I said earlier, boats screaming by the 2 little islands (often faster than 45 MPH by their own admission on this forum:eek:) are a big problem.
Yes, other NWZ's may be added or extended. People who might use these tight areas but do not reside there will complain loudly but it's likely that most residents who are most affected will give it a thumbs up. I suspect this definitely is the case with those 2 little islands(Little Birch and Squirrell) where I noticed boats, rafts, docks, and swimmers all sharing this tight channel.

[MAXUM]

I have read many posts on this issue. I also have experienced some tight situations in the pole.

From what I have gathered and by those living there have posted (who I think have the best perspective on the matter is)

1. Speed has nothing to do with the wakes. We all know if you are on plain whether at 30 mph or 45 mph your wake is smaller then when you are going 20(ish) and transitioning between plowing and plaining speed.

2. the 150 foot safe passage rule needs to be enforced in the tighter areas. The no wake zone in this instance is placing a restricting year round on the area when it is rarely an issue even on the weekends.

3. Even property owners who are directly effected are mixed in whether this is needed or not. But from what I have read the only issue is large wakes. Not speed, not fear, not noise ONLY wakes... Since this is the case it is difficult to say a No wake will solve everyone's issue. As proven time and time again if a boat goes through the pole on plain there is little to no issue with a wake. However if boats are forced to come on and off plain those land owners immediately bordering where boats will always be slowing down and speeding up could be even more effected then the current situation.

I think this is a very tough issue and I personally have mixed feelings on this for I have seen it from both sides. But lets keep into context exactly what that problem is Large wakes nothing more.

I agree, if the problem in fact is large wakes there is only so much that can be done short of using a NWZ to combat it, but to what end? If the end result is that traffic gets redirected to another area then the problem exists there too. So two thoughts come to mind, not that I like either one of them, but maybe worth while to consider.

First idea, as previously mentioned, make this area a part time NWZ during prime summer months.

Second idea, like some roads and bridges that have weight restrictions, maybe consider the same for that area, where large boats are prohibited from passing through. BTW I'm not trying to stir the pot here by the mention of "large" boats. How to quantify large, well that is sure to create quite a discussion.

Of the two I like the first, both I think would be a nightmare to enforce. Dunno - no good answer as of yet, but throwing ideas around is how problems get solved in unique ways. I'd like to think some sort of reasonable solution could be devised, a full time NWZ in that area just seems really overkill and it's creation may have adverse negative affects if instituted as is.

[OCDACTIVE]

And as I said earlier, boats screaming by the 2 little islands (often faster than 45 MPH by their own admission on this forum:eek:) are a big problem.


Sunset, we have all appreciated your responses, but I have read back on every post, and other then you (not even the land owners who started this thread) have ever mentioned that boats going over 45 is an issue. Using language like screaming, faster then 45 mph is only stirring the pot.

Can we just agree that the safe passage rule needs to be enforced and that wakes are an issue?

[DEJ]

Boats running on the pad through this area leave little to no wake. I am concerned that this proposed no wake area will actually cause more damage. As we all know many boaters do not know what no wake speed is. I can see this area quite possibly becoming a "plow fest" as those who do not understand what no wake really is plow through the area. As the old saying goes "be careful what you wish for."

[MAXUM]

Boats running on the pad through this area leave little to no wake. I am concerned that this proposed no wake area will actually cause more damage. As we all know many boaters do not know what no wake speed is. I can see this area quite possibly becoming a "plow fest" as those who do not understand what no wake really is plow through the area. As the old saying goes "be careful what you wish for."

You know that's a great point due to the proposed length of this area to pass through. People are going to get impatient going through such a long stretch at a snail's pace and surely will tend to be water plowers.

[Mee-n-Mac]

I don't understand the complaints either. Some of the best times on my boat are at no wake speeds....sight seeing, conversing, etc. I can't understand the mentality where people feel a boat has only 2 speeds...stop and full throttle. And so many people go past the 2 little islands just 150' from shore...I felt sorry for the people on shore.

We're it to be stop (or NWS) and "full throttle" I suspect there wouldn't be as much complaining. From what I've heard here, the issue is wake size and I'll guess it's mostly due to the same thing I see off my dock. The restriction in channel width plus people's intransigence to line up sticks a bunch'o'boats all in the same place at the same time. When that happens you get the mushers out in force. NWS is too slow for them and on plane is too fast, so they settle at the inbetween speed where no boat should operate. 2 speeds would be better than the infinitely variable speeds some people choose to use.

[hazelnut]

Sunset, we have all appreciated your responses, but I have read back on every post, and other then you (not even the land owners who started this thread) have ever mentioned that boats going over 45 is an issue. Using language like screaming, faster then 45 mph is only stirring the pot.

Can we just agree that the safe passage rule needs to be enforced and that wakes are an issue?

I live here on the Barbers Pole and I can tell you our biggest issue is the large cruiser wakes and the boats plowing along. In almost 10 years here I can count on on hand how many times I've seen a boat go by here above the current law. The issue as has been discussed occurs during these times:

Saturday 12noon-4:00pm
Sunday 12noon-2:00pm
give or take an hour here and there.

So we need a law for this? 6+/- hours a weekend for 8-10 weeks? I'm heavily leaning towards no. Again I have said that I am torn as my boat does take a beating during these hours. With that said I still think a law that punishes all the boaters headed south from the Northeast corner of the lake should not be punished for that.

The biggest problem stems from the random joker in the 40 footer plowing along. I'll try and catch a video and post it one of these days.

[VtSteve]

I'm pretty sure SOTD knows very well what wake sizes are produced at what speeds. It's pretty clear from property owners on the lake what the issues may or may not be as well. I honestly don't know anyone who's best boating moments are at no wake speed, except fishermen trolling. I spend a great deal of time on the hook, but that's different.

Everyone should thank the people that are having rational discourse on this subject. And for the record, like many, I haven't formed a full opinion on this particular NWZ myself.

[Baja Guy]

I travel through Barber Pole every so often and hardly ever come upon someone who observes the 150' rule on weekends. People just bomb through on plane at under 150'. It really annoys me because I slow down. Now I understand that it's tough to get a big tub back to speed but if that's what you got that's how it goes. I may be the only person who doesn't mind slowing down because I enjoy the sensation of acceleration. It's particularly enjoyable in my boat because it's a little under propped so it has great pickup.
End of ramble...
Another poster had the thought of floating some ideas. What about a decoy boat? I believe the MP has some old boats. If they stick one in a high violation area like that it could deter the weekend warriors. Might work, and wouldn't cost much. Also they could post some very clear signs leading into the area that it is being heavily monitored.
I wouldn't be unhappy if SBONH got involved with 150 foot rule reminder signs at ramps, bridges, gas docks and the like. Maybe, maybe, maybe. I just wish I had more weekdays to use my boat, I don't see too many problems then.
Pete

[sunset on the dock]

Sunset, we have all appreciated your responses, but I have read back on every post, and other then you (not even the land owners who started this thread) have ever mentioned that boats going over 45 is an issue. Using language like screaming, faster then 45 mph is only stirring the pot.

Can we just agree that the safe passage rule needs to be enforced and that wakes are an issue?

I was referring to this forum, not this thread. And as I said, wakes and erosion are not the only issue. Safety AND noise are part of the problem. Some have argued that noise is not a good reason for a NWZ but some of the loud boats that scream by the 2 little islands just 150' away...well...as was said earlier, if you can't get Al Capone on murder charges, then at least get him on tax fraud.

[OCDACTIVE]

I was referring to this forum, not this thread. And as I said, wakes and erosion are not the only issue. Safety AND noise are part of the problem. Some have argued that noise is not a good reason for a NWZ but some of the loud boats that scream by the 2 little islands just 150' away...well...as was said earlier, if you can't get Al Capone on murder charges, then at least get him on tax fraud.

Well in the future I think when we are trying to hash out the issues of the NWZ in the barbers pole we should focus on the actual thread, not the entire forum and remarks from others that have no bearing on the discussion at hand and made in the context of another discussion all together.

After reading the last thread and this one, especially from first hand accounts of those who live in the pole, their contention with the issue of perhaps needing a NWZ is "ONLY" wakes. At no point did Safety AND Noise come up other then by you. So again lets take a step back and address the specific question of why this has been requested by land owners that petitioned for the NWZ in the first place. From all the accounts I have read it had nothing to do with "screaming boats at or further away then the safe passage law dictates". The use again of the verbage "screaming and noise" is an exaggeration to create an illusion of something that has not been discussed nor has been said by anyone who actually lives there. So lets keep the subtle context of these at bay. Also at no point have I read:

"We need this NWZ because my docks and boat are taking a beating from a boat on plain abiding by the laws that are in place to keep boats a safe distance away which has been derived by the dept. of safety and marine patrol."

Hazelnut has specifically mentioned Large Cruisers who are not paying attention to their sizable wakes at very limited times only in the summer. Now, I am not sure if Al Capone is on those boats but maybe we can ask to keep an eye out for him as well in the future when enforcing current laws.

I personally think we need more data and perhaps a study as to where the NWZ would start and stop, the distance from that point to the adjacent shore and then figure out the speed in which the wake will dimish in that zone. Again we especially don't want to make the problem worse for a small set of land owners at the immediate spot where boats are forced to come on and off plain just so other land owners can experience no wakes during these limited time frames in the summer.

[VtSteve]

Extremes indeed.

Thanks once again OCD, for keeping this thread on topic :)

I would politely suggest, on behalf of both this forum, and Don himself, if people that are not specifically interested in following this issue, refrain from posting here. It's a very important issue on the lake, and one that could have far-reaching impacts.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

[sunset on the dock]

Well in the future I think when we are trying to hash out the issues of the NWZ in the barbers pole we should focus on the actual thread, not the entire forum and remarks from others that have no bearing on the discussion at hand and made in the context of another discussion all together.

Of course remarks from other parts of the forum are relevant and have bearing on the issue at hand, as are remarks from other forums where people speak of breaking the law.
After reading the last thread and this one, especially from first hand accounts of those who live in the pole, their contention with the issue of perhaps needing a NWZ is "ONLY" wakes. At no point did Safety AND Noise come up other then by you. So again lets take a step back and address the specific question of why has this been requested by land owners that petitioned for the NWZ in the first place.



Safety and noise are an issue for the people on these 2 small islands as well as in other areas of the Barber's Pole. It was one of the reasons behind the movement for a NWZ. I have visited folks in this area...it is a major reason!

[Turtle Boy]

Well in the future I think when we are trying to hash out the issues of the NWZ in the barbers pole we should focus on the actual thread, not the entire forum and remarks from others that have no bearing on the discussion at hand and made in the context of another discussion all together.


No bearing on the discussion? Of course other threads are relevant. You yourself bragged last year of "almost doubling the limit". No wonder the poor folks along the Barber Pole petitioned for a NWZ. Not relevant is different from wishing it were not relevant.

[OCDACTIVE]

Thank you VTsteve... Good Call

I think keeping the discussion on topic with the specific conversation from the posters at hand is very important. This is a very important issue that needs relevant facts and data to prove its relevance and how it can be instituted or not in the most effective manner.

Now I am a straight shooter and personally have not traveled to the islands and knocked door to door asking opinions, however I have counted three residents from the area in these discussions and all have explained in detail what they see the issue to be. So from my hundreds of times if not thousands of times passing through the pole, their posts, and the hours spent personally sitting on the dock watching the boats go by there, I can say with great certainty that this location is in no way unsafer or noisier then anywhere else on the lake that is a channel or bay of its size. There will always be some risk inherent in a waterway used by the public. There are laws, restrictions, and edcucation that has helped reduce these inherent risks.

Without the supporting data and study that I suggested earlier I can not say one way or the other whether this is needed.

IF we start adding NWZ's to simply fix what some people "feel" is an issue without hard facts then it is just a matter of time before more and more and more un-needed NWZ's are petitioned for.

I for one would much rather see the state fund the MP in a manner as such so that they have the resources to enforce the many laws they are charged with already. We can't keep piling more on whether it be more ordenances or NWZ's unless they are needed and asked for by the Marine Patrol.

When was the last time the marine patrol directly asked for a restriction to be placed? I can not think of one in recent memory. But if they were to stand up and say, this is an area that we would like to see a NWZ due to reasons A,B,C from XYZ study then please point me in the way of the petition to sign.

Ok I'm jumping off my soap box..

Time for a Mai Tai on the dock.. (boy I wish I was there right now, 24 hours and counting! but only there for 12 hours then back home YUCK! :( )


In Response to TB's attempt on twisting the facts yet again:

HELLO MCFLY!!! I doubled it testing the boat in Long Island Sound!!!! Seriously. Please refer me to the RSA in the NH Statues the prohibits me from using my boat at 90 mph in NEW YORK on THE OCEAN?????

[DEJ]

Thanks SOTD, this info could be very usefull for anyone who is considering an appeal. :)

[Dhuberty24]

I live right outside the barbers pole, I will agree that big boat wakes suck. The biggest problem is the people who are going headway speed in the middle of the channel. They make it so there is no way around but to slow down and slowly pass them, causing a big wake.
I for one always go through the hole in the wall, I usually just idle down there, waiting for the boat to warm up.
One thing I can tell you because I live there is there is definitely no noise problem. I know allot of people on cow island and I have never heard any body ever complain about noise.

[hazelnut]

SOTD,

In this case I am sorry but you are wrong. I have a house here I have had a house here for almost 10 years. I have ten years of experience with this exact location that is in question. My neighbors and I all agree what the problem is. The people you speak of on Squirrel Island do not spend any time there. I don't know who you spoke to but that house is rented almost 99.9% of the summer.

What we are talking about is basically my back yard. So any comment you have made so far is hearsay and conjecture. If I did not own a house at this location we could debate this subject but considering that you do not own a house here and your viewpoint is based on a few observations and second hand commentary I am going to respectfully disagree with your assumptions.

Last weekend I began videotaping the location and I will post a series of videos for you all to weigh in on. I'm hoping to catch a big Cruiser going by at some point, it is inevitable.

The big problem is and has been for the past almost 10 years, big wakes. Boats do not "scream by (the area)" Quite the contrary many boats do a good job and have done a good job for several years, maintaining safe speeds through the area. The loudest boat I heard this week, it made me look out the window it was so loud, was an antique CrissCraft. I smiled and laughed and wondered what some on the forum would have said to me if they were standing inside my house with me when it went by. :laugh:

[TiltonBB]

Too many people want to transform the area of the lake they live on into something that it will never be.

Boats go by your house and leave a wake? Get over it! It's a boat, that's what they do.
Boat go by your house and you can hear it? Get over it!
The NH philosophy "Live free or die" is being ignored and eroded with all these little rules. They take away from the pleasure and enjoyment that many people have had for years.
My house looks out to open water for several miles. Guess what? When a large boat or a small boat plowing along goes by two miles away the wake splashes over a two foot wall at the water and onto my front lawn. Should I go ask the state to make the area 3 miles in front of my house into a "No Wake" zone?
Should I ask the state to close down the two marinas around the corner that have over 300 boats, many of which leave large wakes as they pass by?
How many people that bought their houses knew what the situation was in front of their house when they bought it and are now trying to change it?
Buy some mooring whips, get a mooring, that is what many people on my street have done.
The last thing we need is more government regulation. Stop trying to change the lake. There was a reason why you bought on Winnipesaukee or moved here, isn't that reason still good enough?

[VtSteve]

I live right outside the barbers pole, I will agree that big boat wakes suck. The biggest problem is the people who are going headway speed in the middle of the channel. They make it so there is no way around but to slow down and slowly pass them, causing a big wake.
I for one always go through the hole in the wall, I usually just idle down there, waiting for the boat to warm up.
One thing I can tell you because I live there is there is definitely no noise problem. I know allot of people on cow island and I have never heard any body ever complain about noise.

Well someone's complaining, at least that's what someone says. The issue snuck up pretty quick on everybody, which I suspect was the intended result. Whenever I hear anyone relate boats on plane to larger wakes, I smell a rat. It sounds to me like someone's been doing some campaigning, or fibbin'.

Either way, I've never heard anyone in a channel or bay want a NWZ. It simply ruins the atmosphere. The same reasoning for this NWZ could apply to Meredith Neck, and a variety of places. I've fought in the past to make sailboats take down their sails and be under power in headway only areas, and I'd do it again.

[ApS]

"...How many people that bought their houses knew what the situation was in front of their house when they bought it and are now trying to change it? Buy some mooring whips, get a mooring, that is what many people on my street have done. The last thing we need is more government regulation. Stop trying to change the lake. There was a reason why you bought on Winnipesaukee or moved here, isn't that reason still good enough...?"
Looking at our family's Winnipesaukee photographs taken before 1985 show scant boats in this area. That has certainly changed! :eek: Huge boat-lifts are becoming the norm, not moorings. :eek2:

BTW: We moved here to be close to Wolfeboro's airport! :laugh:

"...I've fought in the past to make sailboats take down their sails and be under power in headway only areas, and I'd do it again..."
On this same-exact subject, we're into the third page (and two threads): residents are "dissed" and there are eight negative references to cruisers—even sailboats have been added.

About 90% of the monohulls* and catamarans* in my area have no engines—and that's not including several windsurfers.
*Boaters who actually put the sails up to go boating.

Of Lake Winnipesaukee, how often have we heard:

"This Lake is for Everybody"
:rolleye1:

How many times do we hear of "...no more government regulations...", when the same folks were calling for "Boater Certification"? :confused:

"...I...am a safe captain at any speed..."
Of this lake's captains, 50% "are above average". :rolleye2: :emb:

[sunset on the dock]

The last thing we need is more government regulation. Stop trying to change the lake. There was a reason why you bought on Winnipesaukee or moved here, isn't that reason still good enough?

The lake is not the same lake that it was in 1960. We have valet stacked boats, bigger horsepower, and way more boats altogether. New situations call for different laws. Perhaps it didn't matter 100 years ago if every boat on the lake dumped their human waste into the lake but it does today. Saying "get over it" is just an unrealistic oversimplification.

And last weekend the loudest boat I heard was not a CrissCraft (sic).

[Greene's Basin Girl]

Well someone's complaining, at least that's what someone says. The issue snuck up pretty quick on everybody, which I suspect was the intended result. Whenever I hear anyone relate boats on plane to larger wakes, I smell a rat. It sounds to me like someone's been doing some campaigning, or fibbin'.

Either way, I've never heard anyone in a channel or bay want a NWZ. It simply ruins the atmosphere. The same reasoning for this NWZ could apply to Meredith Neck, and a variety of places. I've fought in the past to make sailboats take down their sails and be under power in headway only areas, and I'd do it again.

where exactly is the Barbers pole?

[VtSteve]

On this same-exact subject, we're into the third page (and two threads): residents are "dissed" and there are eight negative references to cruisers—even sailboats have been added.

About 90% of the monohulls* and catamarans* in my area have no engines—and that's not including several windsurfers.
*Boaters who actually put the sails up to go boating.



Aside from the sarcasm and my ridiculous comment towards sailboats APS (which you didn't get?), real "residents" of the area in question have chimed in, and spoken their mind.

That's pretty refreshing IMO, so join with them in the discussion, I'll try not to confuse you anymore :laugh:

[DMAX]

What a SAD state of affairs this Lake has turned into. Just a shame!! I see it going down and getting worse every single year, one way or the other. It is truely a shame what the people are doing to this, Once upon a time Great lake! Trying to make it a privatized personal pond is not the way to go.

YES YES YES More rules , More Regulations, More Laws and while were at it lets raise the property taxes on the water front property owners that push for these new laws, to pay for all this extra protection. The way things are going soon enuff the lake will be so over regulated nobody will want to boat on it . Be careful what you wish for, It could get expensive, remember not everybody that lives on the lake is a multi bizillioner. And no I dont live on the lake. I only get to enjoy it a few months out of the year, weekends mostly and I pay a good part of 5K to do it. Not very much time compared to the blessed that get it everyday all year long that keep pushing for more restrictions on what you can and can't do (mostly can't) sad

[VtSteve]

The lake is not the same lake that it was in 1960. We have valet stacked boats, bigger horsepower, and way more boats altogether. New situations call for different laws. Perhaps it didn't matter 100 years ago if every boat on the lake dumped their human waste into the lake but it does today. Saying "get over it" is just an unrealistic oversimplification.

And last weekend the loudest boat I heard was not a CrissCraft (sic).

Dumping anything in the lake has always been a fairly serious thing. I remember one time many years ago a boat and owner were "escorted off the lake", so to speak. I always thought that NH and Winni were lightyears ahead of many states in their water protection.

But getting back to this thread title. People that live there have expressed themselves quite well. How would you address their answers, which are quite up-to-date and current, to the issue at hand?

[hazelnut]

And last weekend the loudest boat I heard was not a CrissCraft (sic).

But last weekend the loudest boat I heard was a (woops) Chris-Craft.

Anyway back on topic. There is a petition circulating to have another "public" hearing. Some folks, should I say the majority of the folks in the area of the Barbers Pole are trying to get a legitimate hearing as the previous hearing was done so with little to no notification to the people who reside in this area. I stumbled upon the information while looking for Parking Passes for the Tuftonboro public lot. The petition is being circulated by a gentleman who lives on Tuftonboro Neck. I'll try to get more details. I'll also notify the members of Winni.com of any hearings that come up.

[sunset on the dock]

But getting back to this thread title. People that live there have expressed themselves quite well. How would you address their answers, which are quite up-to-date and current, to the issue at hand?

This is how. I spoke with a friend from the Barber Pole today. Signatures had to be collected on a petition in order to get a hearing. At said hearing 12 people signed in as For the NWZ and either 1 or 2 against. Afterwards, people wrote to the DOS, I am told, with a 5:1 majority in favor of the NWZ. These are the real residents of the area chiming in.

[OCDACTIVE]

But last weekend the loudest boat I heard was a (woops) Chris-Craft.

Anyway back on topic. There is a petition circulating to have another "public" hearing. Some folks, should I say the majority of the folks in the area of the Barbers Pole are trying to get a legitimate hearing as the previous hearing was done so with little to no notification to the people who reside in this area. I stumbled upon the information while looking for Parking Passes for the Tuftonboro public lot. The petition is being circulated by a gentleman who lives on Tuftonboro Neck. I'll try to get more details. I'll also notify the members of Winni.com of any hearings that come up.

Great to hear Hazelnut.... Please keep us informed. I realize you are on the fence but let us know which way you come down on and we will support you 110%.... By all means you live there and will be the most effected!

[Yankee]

where exactly is the Barbers pole?

From your location, you have to head towards the main area of the lake, the so called Barbers Pole is located where the lake narrows between Cow Island(and 2 small islands, Birch? is one) and the main land. It is a narrow channel where on a busy day it is difficult to keep 150 ft from shore and other oncoming boats.

But that problem is only for a very limited distance, and quickly opens up in either direction. This is the crux of the argrument; that is having to slow down for such a short distance would generally create more boat wake than if boats were allowed to remain on plane. here's the link to the hearing held in July: http://www.tuftonboro.org/pages/tuftonboronh_news/0159806E-000F8513

IMHO, sunset on the dock and his proponents have an ulterior motive other than the "noise" and their misunderstood "wave" reduction: Large/small, fast/slow boats are bad and must not be permitted to pass by his(sic) property. How dare all these boats disturb their part of the lake, after all they've been here these many years and are "entitled" to their peace of(on) the lake,. Sorry SOTD, but the lake is not what it was as you and I remember 40+ years ago. There is no way that one can turn back the hands of time. Sure, you might be able to maintain your precious NWZ, but that won't diminish the amount of traffic going past your place. You'll see the same amount, albiet slower and throwing up larger wakes.

At least you have the honor to have a place on the lake, if I were you I'd take solice in that.

[VtSteve]

Anyway back on topic. There is a petition circulating to have another "public" hearing. Some folks, should I say the majority of the folks in the area of the Barbers Pole are trying to get a legitimate hearing as the previous hearing was done so with little to no notification to the people who reside in this area. I stumbled upon the information while looking for Parking Passes for the Tuftonboro public lot. The petition is being circulated by a gentleman who lives on Tuftonboro Neck. I'll try to get more details. I'll also notify the members of Winni.com of any hearings that come up.

Well this ought to be interesting HN. Apparently, at least 12 people are for the NWZ, and actually signed the petition as being For it.

Sorry Hazelnut, I don't think you're a "real resident" anymore. Looks like headway speed only on the lake from now on.

[John A. Birdsall]

Someone stated that because of the changing of time, changing of HP on the lake that we need a changing of laws. I think in my lifetime that there has been on one needed change in law and that is the 150' law. The rest of the laws are not needed, You cannot make a law that dictates common sense or courtesy, and for the last 30 years those two items on the lake have deterioated to the point of non exsistance. That does not mean everyone, but a majority. You have people pulling skiers in a small area, but watch out cause there is probably two or three other boats pulling skiers, and perhaps a kayak. We need no new laws, we need a way to instill common sense, and courtesy amongst boaters, whether they be cigarette boats or kayaks or in between.

[jrc]

Here's an idea, let's ask the people around the Governors Island, Eagle Island NWZ what they think. They have recent experience with a busy, narrow channel going from wake to no wake.

Are they happy with the change?
Do they think it improves their lake experience?
Has erosion improved?
Has safety improved?

For full disclosure, I was "pro" the Eagle Island NWZ before it was implemented. I'm less sure now, as I just avoid it and the whole area when it's crowded. It is a PITA to slow down mid-week.

[MAXUM]

Someone stated that because of the changing of time, changing of HP on the lake that we need a changing of laws. I think in my lifetime that there has been on one needed change in law and that is the 150' law. The rest of the laws are not needed, You cannot make a law that dictates common sense or courtesy, and for the last 30 years those two items on the lake have deterioated to the point of non exsistance. That does not mean everyone, but a majority. You have people pulling skiers in a small area, but watch out cause there is probably two or three other boats pulling skiers, and perhaps a kayak. We need no new laws, we need a way to instill common sense, and courtesy amongst boaters, whether they be cigarette boats or kayaks or in between.

Is it common sense that's lacking or is it lack of experience combined with ignorance? It's easy for a seasoned captain to see somebody do something unsafe and say that person is an idiot, but keep in mind that person may have no clue what they are doing. While the boater's ed is a step in the right direction in regards to education, but sometimes what I witness on so many occasions makes me wonder if it's enough for somebody who is really green.

Lack of courtesy is a reflection of the overall condition of our culture and society today. People are becoming more and more interested in themselves and self gratification and less so about the effects of their behavior on others. That's not to say that everyone is like that, but sadly a growing number of people are. This is something no law can address. If our culture does not demand self restraint, decency, and an overall awareness of cause and effect in regards to behavior then the bar is set low as to what is acceptable. This may not go over to well, but I directly relate this to fact that this country was founded on Christian principals which for those that are God fearing understand. Since a growing segment of the population does not adhere to these principals nor understand the basic meaning of right and wrong it's no surprise to see what is occurring. It's a matter I guess of looking at things philosophically.

[VtSteve]

There's a lot of attitude in our society for sure. Whether it be people towing tubes in busy traffic areas, or just all these other folks wanting to tell everyone else how they can boat. Some of the comments about this type of NWZ are just as ignorant as those that mush through at max wake speed, or leave no room for other boaters, causing the problem. I don't know what's worse, boaters that really never think about their actions or care about others, or those that spend every waking moment trying to get rid of other boaters that aren't like them.

It would make my boating life infinitely better and easier if no sailboats were allowed in Malletts Bay. But, it's such a logical mooring base for them, that would be ridiculous. I enjoy seeing them, but not having to navigate around them. So I just appreciate their choice, their beauty, and we co-exist and have fun boating. So I can just spend a little more time in a NWZ (channel) and figure out where they are all headed, and then feel free to navigate for 100 miles without seeing another NWZ. Refreshing. It would be far easier to suggest that no sailboats could be in the Bay, right? :laugh:

I think on-water instruction is really the only sensible solution to boating today. I think people that think they are ultra safe would learn as much, if not more, than those that navigate without hesitation, but with plenty of common sense. It's hard to teach or legislate common sense, but it's a far better way to deal with today's boating world than knee-jerk reactions.

One thing I have suggested in the past, and will do again. Get some special funding for a series of TV/Internet video clips for the MP to do a Boating Tips series. Nothing is better than hands on training and instant feedback, but visuals are a close second. Show a cruiser mushing through that area, followed by a MP doing narrative of what happens to landowners and other boaters. Then, the same boat doing it the preferred way. Very powerful training guides. The $700,000 they took from the MP fund this year could have done a lot of good.

[sunset on the dock]

Maxim makes some very good points here. Maybe some of his points underlie why I'm a little bit surprised that some would oppose the B.P. NWZ, especially in light of some of the other recent threads regarding "boating etiquette". I mean here you need at least 25 people to sign a petition to get a hearing, people from the B.P. show up at the hearing and a majority favor a NWZ, then 5:1 write letters in favor...my point is that clearly there are residents of the area who feel that for whatever reason they favor a NWZ. Now some of you can argue about how some people in the B.P. are opposed to a NWZ or that the residents of the B.P. are out to protect their little piece of Nirvana etc. but I'm trying to point out something bigger here...and here it is. We have some laws on the lake that some on this forum disagree with and thought could never happen. Whether people agree or disagree that there is a noise problem, speed problem, too big wakes, or they "don't feel safe" is not the point. Ignoring these concerns (with comments similar to "get over it" ) solved nothing and an inability to acknowledge these concerns and or self police brought us to where we are today. So my point is that here you have a bunch of people who live in the affected area lobbying for a NWZ...shouldn't we be cognizant of the fact that maybe they have some valid concerns? Well maybe your answer is: "no, these are selfish concerns, its my lake too and I don't want to slow down for 2 minutes on my way to town". Alright, that's your right to express your opinion. So let's say some group that doesn't want to slow down opposes this NWZ and were able to overturn it. Is there any downside to this other than ticking off a few B.P. residents? Well maybe. For example they get together with others in other areas of the lake and say "well that didn't work and maybe there is a larger lake wide problem of boats going too fast in all areas of the lake except the Broads...we need a law that keeps boats at 30 MPH all over the lake except the Broads where 40 MPH is OK...I'm calling my state rep." All I'm trying to point out is to ignore what many people might be a problem with comments like "get a life" does not address the problem and in fact may lead to an over reaction by those who couldn't get a much lesser restriction. I see parallels to other past legislation. We have heard from the snow machine crowd that failure to acknowledge people's concerns about noise has forced some private landowners to close their land. So maybe I'm throwing back what I've seen said on this forum before.."be careful what you wish for". Things could be a whole lot worse than a NWZ.

[lfm]

Here's an idea, let's ask the people around the Governors Island, Eagle Island NWZ what they think. They have recent experience with a busy, narrow channel going from wake to no wake.

Are they happy with the change?
Do they think it improves their lake experience?
Has erosion improved?
Has safety improved?

For full disclosure, I was "pro" the Eagle Island NWZ before it was implemented. I'm less sure now, as I just avoid it and the whole area when it's crowded. It is a PITA to slow down mid-week.

I don't have a home in that area, but do frequent that area - and I think that the NWZ between Governers and Eagle is awful. The area is prone to big waves/wakes from heavy traffic on weekends and it is made worse by boats coming on and off plane and mushing through there. I think it was much safer to navigate before the NWZ was implemented. I know there are times when travelling through that headway speed is mushing speed to avoid taking waves over the bow.:(

[VitaBene]

Sunset,

Many people on the lake are effected by noise, wake, etc. The problem with a NWZ is where does it stop? Using the BP example, there are miles of similar areas north of the BP where lake front residents could make similar requests.

Do we make the entire lake a NWZ? Frankly, I think that there are some that would like that. Do you recall when, due to high water levels, the entire lake was a NWZ? I do and it would take almost 6 hours to go from Moultonborough to Meredith by boat. Ask the islanders if they want to spend 3 hours getting to their camps from the mainland docks.

My point is that there are a lot of lakefront homeowners that would probably welcome a NWZ directly in front of their homes but they know at some point the NWZ has to end (I commiserate with Hazelnut- his best interest would be served with a NWZ but he struggles because he knows that it may not what is best for the majority of lake users).

There are those that will contend that the SL did not ruin the lake's economy, but I guarantee that turning Lake Winnipesaukee into a NWZ certainly will.

There is a huge difference between the snowmobile issue and this one. In most cases snowmachines travel across PRIVATE land- Lake Winnipesaukee is not private, it is owned by all of the residents of NH equally.

[VtSteve]

Sunset, it's all well and good to threaten people if they don't bow down to your demands. You're beginning to sound like a terrorist group. Where are these BP residents that want this NWZ, and why aren't they debating this here? It's nice that "for whatever reason, they favor a NWZ". So far, no real reasons have come up for anyone to really favor it. Perhaps there should be a MINIMUM speed in that area, to avoid the mushers that cause large wakes. They do this on interstates you know, for safety reasons.

Maxum did indeed make some good points. I fail to see where any of them supported a NWZ, perhaps you could help :emb:

[VtSteve]

VB said it much better than I did. HN brought into question the NWZ, and what it would do to the majority of boaters that are not a problem.

SOTD, I know that you like NWZ's, and any that are proposed, you'd probably support. But I also notice that you avoid discussions of enforcement, existing laws, and just good common sense boating practices like the plague. Contrary to your statement that some are "ignoring" people's concerns, everyone invited people to list those concerns and problems. People that live there, and those that boat through the area. HN was quite eloquent in stating his concerns, both pro and con.

I believe it is You that continually ignore the responses from people that have stated what they've witnessed in the area, and what should be done about it. Everyone involved in this discussion is cognizant of everyone's posts. I have yet to read a post where someone in the affected area is actively lobbying for a NWZ, and why it's the only solution. Where are these people? I'm sure there are some, and everyone would love to discuss this issue, including some that do in fact live and boat there as stated.

I do think discussion of all the issues and solutions is better than making idle threats if agreement is not obtained. Please invite those people to discuss this. I'm sure HN is looking for them as well.

[hazelnut]

This is how. I spoke with a friend from the Barber Pole today. Signatures had to be collected on a petition in order to get a hearing. At said hearing 12 people signed in as For the NWZ and either 1 or 2 against. Afterwards, people wrote to the DOS, I am told, with a 5:1 majority in favor of the NWZ. These are the real residents of the area chiming in.

"REAL RESIDENTS????" Are you kidding me???? :rolleye2: SOTD Step away from the keyboard please.

OF COURSE there were 12 people for the NWZ and only 1 or 2 against. This is the point I was making. The people who proposed this and support this got together and told no one what they were doing. They were able to get a hearing and the town DID NOT notify any of the abutting property owners. They "stacked the deck" if you will. They snuck in a little hearing and made it look like the majority support a NWZ.

So here is where we are. A very nice man came to my house a couple of weekends ago and asked if we knew anything about this hearing about a NWZ at the Barbers Pole. I informed him that like everyone in the area we were in the dark. He said he wanted to get a "real hearing" after notifying every resident of the area first. What do the proposers have to hide? Why didn't they notify ALL of the property owners in the area?

As I said I am not sure which way I am leaning as the NWZ would have many benefits for me personally. What I don't like though is the fact that everyone north of the area suffers for my enjoyment. Again SOTD I live in a world where I consider the impact on other people's enjoyment, not just my own selfish views.

[sunset on the dock]

Sunset, it's all well and good to threaten people if they don't bow down to your demands. You're beginning to sound like a terrorist group. Where are these BP residents that want this NWZ, and why aren't they debating this here?

No threats here, and I'm certainly not a terrorist. My point was to point out parallels to existing laws and how they may have come about. And as I said before, the B.P. residents did sign in, show up and write. As to why they aren't debating it here...well Winni.com is a big part of some our lives, but my guess is that if you looked at the number of forum members vs. number of people who enjoy the lake, well the fraction would indeed be very small. That's just simple arithmetic.


SOTD, I know that you like NWZ's, and any that are proposed, you'd probably support. But I also notice that you avoid discussions of enforcement, existing laws, and just good common sense boating practices like the plague.

That's only because most of the time they have been discussed in this forum in the light of trying to dis recent progress and changes that have made the lake a better place for most everyone.

I do think discussion of all the issues and solutions is better than making idle threats if agreement is not obtained. Please invite those people to discuss this. I'm sure HN is looking for them as well.

Again, calling what I said an idle threat is just inflammatory rhetoric. I was making an analogy that ignoring people's concerns, whether it be noise, wakes, or safety, sometimes results in laws which might be more draconian than some would have thought would result (say excessively uncontrolled loud boats being regulated vs. a speed limit or loud snow machines making land owners close their land).

[VtSteve]

I'll not trouble the good people here any more with this nonsense. I'm fairly sure that most readers here can understand full well what SOTD means, even if he can't say it. Hazlenut, thanks for your real contributions to this thread, and for informing people as to the draconian and cowardly tactics of groups that sneak around in the night trying to make the lake something awful.

Personally, I'd like to see a thread started by SOTD as to what went on this year to cause so many accidents this summer on the lake.

But realistically, I'd like to hear more from this debate from real residents in the BP area. As Hazelnut said, there are some benefits from having a NWZ in the BP area, and obviously, some very real disadvantages.

SOTD, you've ceased to be useful in this discussion at all.

[VitaBene]

No threats here, and I'm certainly not a terrorist. My point was to point out parallels to existing laws and how they may have come about. And as I said before, the B.P. residents did sign in, show up and write. As to why they aren't debating it here...well Winni.com is a big part of some our lives, but my guess is that if you looked at the number of forum members vs. number of people who enjoy the lake, well the fraction would indeed be very small. That's just simple arithmetic.

That's only because most of the time they have been discussed in this forum in the light of trying to dis recent progress and changes that have made the lake a better place for most everyone.


Again, calling what I said an idle threat is just inflammatory rhetoric. I was making an analogy that ignoring people's concerns, whether it be noise, wakes, or safety, sometimes results in laws which might be more draconian than some would have thought would result (say excessively uncontrolled loud boats being regulated vs. a speed limit or loud snow machines making land owners close their land).

The part that you are missing is that the overly loud boats or snowmachines are already breaking the existing laws. Making a new law to fight something illegal makes little sense and just taxes the already thin resources of the hard working NH Marine Patrol.

[MAXUM]

SOTD-

It's disingenuous and dare I say inaccurate to assume what anyone thinks about a particular subject such as this NWZ proposal without having a chance to get a good accurate broad based sampling of those concerned. The comments of a few land owners is no more representative than the opinions expressed on this forum. However I would venture to say that the forum here attracts a very large audience and not necessarily one that has a particular axe to grind. It should however be noted that all to many times discussions on legitimate topics end up way off topic as the same old nonsense is aired out over and over again even though it has little to do with the subject matter in hand. It should also be noted that many here, including myself who are NOT landowners in the area of concern are indeed interested and certainly are not so belligerent as to ignore legitimate pleas for action. What we do bring to the table is a perspective that is free and clear of any particular self interests (not in my front yard syndrome) other than the use of this area as we enjoy the lake.

I think a fair and valid point has been made, the proposal and subsequent meeting in regards to this NWZ was not very well advertised, attended and therefore not necessarily representative of the boating public as much as it COULD have been. If this lead to a decision to be made based on a lack of opposition in attendance I do not think that was a very objective decision to have been made at that time.

[Turtle Boy]

The part that you are missing is that the overly loud boats or snowmachines are already breaking the existing laws. Making a new law to fight something illegal makes little sense and just taxes the already thin resources of the hard working NH Marine Patrol.

The part that some are also missing is that many of these laws are ambigious and difficult to enforce. Take the noise regulations. We have heard discussed how the offending boat needs to tested at a later date and by then the owner may have made modifications (temporary ones that is) so as to temporarily be compliant. And talk about a time and labor intensive enforcement of a law. Very much a waste of resources. And as SOTD keeps trying to point out, people who break these laws and sometimes flaunt it are why new laws are supported to try to fix the loopholes in the already existing law.
Someone said that if you can't get Al Capone for murder then at least get him on tax evasion. This couldn't apply more here and if I lived in the Barber Pole I would understand completely why they would want a NWZ. I hope they get it.

[COW ISL TIME]

The appeal process for the NWZ will end 08/30/10 thirty days from the approval I'm a resident of Cow Island and directly affected by this. I have read the minutes of the meeting supplied to me by a neighbor, more than half of the people that wrote in were from two families on squirrel Isl and little Birch. These people rent the cottages all summer and spend very little time here,not one is a resident of New Hampshire. I don't know how to go about making an appeal, if anybody does please let me know. One of the petitioners actually sited the Blizzard/ Diamond Island accident as the reason they want a no wake.

[TiltonBB]

The wind and rain blew hard all night and waves washed up on my front lawn. The white caps were big and the rough water caused my boat to rock against the dock and pull at it's lines. Does anyone know where I can submit a petition to get this corrected or have the rough water taken off the lake?

Even worse, the Mt Washington and the Sophie C went by about 4 miles away from my house yesterday. Sure enough, about 5 minutes later big waves slammed into my property. Does anyone know where I can submit a petition to get them thrown off the lake?

It's all about me and I want this corrected right away!

[COW ISL TIME]

Interesting reading, I hope I uploaded correctly

[hazelnut]

SOTD-

It's disingenuous and dare I say inaccurate to assume what anyone thinks about a particular subject such as this NWZ proposal without having a chance to get a good accurate broad based sampling of those concerned. The comments of a few land owners is no more representative than the opinions expressed on this forum. However I would venture to say that the forum here attracts a very large audience and not necessarily one that has a particular axe to grind. It should however be noted that all to many times discussions on legitimate topics end up way off topic as the same old nonsense is aired out over and over again even though it has little to do with the subject matter in hand. It should also be noted that many here, including myself who are NOT landowners in the area of concern are indeed interested and certainly are not so belligerent as to ignore legitimate pleas for action. What we do bring to the table is a perspective that is free and clear of any particular self interests (not in my front yard syndrome) other than the use of this area as we enjoy the lake.

I think a fair and valid point has been made, the proposal and subsequent meeting in regards to this NWZ was not very well advertised, attended and therefore not necessarily representative of the boating public as much as it COULD have been. If this lead to a decision to be made based on a lack of opposition in attendance I do not think that was a very objective decision to have been made at that time.

Maxum,

Well said, thank you so much! The reality is that the "Real Residents" of the Barbers Pole area, myself included (dare I say) are just digesting this new scenario. Many of my neighbors and I have had LENGTHY discussions regarding the Pro's and Con's of such a proposal. To have a member of this forum such as SOTD step in and throw the comments that he has just irritates me to no end. Most of what he has said is so completely and patently false I do not know where to begin. All it does is makes me want to go against such a proposal with such fervor that over my dead body it will pass.

However, I have to take a step back though and really see how this affects me and my neighbors. Then I have to take a further step back and see how this affects the MANY friends that I have on this lake that live up in the Moultonboro Bay area and beyond. As I have said numerous times the passage of this NWZ would have immediate and positive benefits to my enjoyment of my property during the busy weekends. With that said I would be going against every fiber of my being supporting a law for my narrow agenda. The reality is folks that a NWZ is not needed in that area. Existing laws cover everything already. If I support it I can honestly tell you it would be for selfish reasons and I do not think I can bring myself to do that. Obviously some of my neighbors have no problem with supporting a new law for their personal selfish agenda. AND to boot they will actually make up stories about "speeding boats" and "dangerous encounters" that just do not exist.

Such a sad turn for the worse in the state of New Hampshire these days. I saw the Welcome to New Hampshire sign the other day and I literally laughed out loud at the phrase that I used to love to see... "Live Free or Die." :laugh: Ya right, I think NH needs a new state motto, and I am NOT kidding here. NH needs to strike that one because it is increasingly becoming a punch line to a very bad joke that this state is turning into. What a shame.

[gtagrip]

Maxum,

Well said, thank you so much! The reality is that the "Real Residents" of the Barbers Pole area, myself included (dare I say) are just digesting this new scenario. Many of my neighbors and I have had LENGTHY discussions regarding the Pro's and Con's of such a proposal. To have a member of this forum such as SOTD step in and throw the comments that he has just irritates me to no end. Most of what he has said is so completely and patently false I do not know where to begin. All it does is makes me want to go against such a proposal with such fervor that over my dead body it will pass.

However, I have to take a step back though and really see how this affects me and my neighbors. Then I have to take a further step back and see how this affects the MANY friends that I have on this lake that live up in the Moultonboro Bay area and beyond. As I have said numerous times the passage of this NWZ would have immediate and positive benefits to my enjoyment of my property during the busy weekends. With that said I would be going against every fiber of my being supporting a law for my narrow agenda. The reality is folks that a NWZ is not needed in that area. Existing laws cover everything already. If I support it I can honestly tell you it would be for selfish reasons and I do not think I can bring myself to do that. Obviously some of my neighbors have no problem with supporting a new law for their personal selfish agenda. AND to boot they will actually make up stories about "speeding boats" and "dangerous encounters" that just do not exist.

Such a sad turn for the worse in the state of New Hampshire these days. I saw the Welcome to New Hampshire sign the other day and I literally laughed out loud at the phrase that I used to love to see... "Live Free or Die." :laugh: Ya right, I think NH needs a new state motto, and I am NOT kidding here. NH needs to strike that one because it is increasingly becoming a punch line to a very bad joke that this state is turning into. What a shame.

Hazelnut, I applaud you for your position regarding the NWZ. You certainly could support the new NWZ for your own "personal selfish agenda" as you would have every right to living in the area. I'm still waiting for SOTD to address some of the comments you have made regarding the "real residents" of the Barber Pole area. I believe he has stated that he has talked to "many" of the real residents of the area. And now it has come to light that in a later post that 2 families that are renters started this process. I guess these are the "real residents" of the area SOTD is referring to. :rolleye2:

[fartbucket5000]

went through there last wednesday. didn't see any no-wake signs.

[hazelnut]

Interesting reading, I hope I uploaded correctly

Sorry to flood the thread but I felt it important to point something out to any and all that read this document submitted by COW ISL TIME.



Let me explain what is going on here. Squirrel Island is a tiny, one home, Island that is located right next to Cow Island, directly across from the Nav Aid at the Barbers Pole. Many of you might actually mistake it as part of Cow Island it is so close to it. Squirrel Island is very close to my property. I can see the house, and hear the folks on the Island, from my property. Squirrel Island is rented every single week through the entire summer. The owners of the property are rarely seen and mostly come during the early spring or late fall. Most of the renters seem nice enough, save for the occasional irritating dog owner that lets their dog bark through the night or swim ashore and run amok on Cow Island. No big deal though.

Anyway I digress. The important thing here is that renters of Squirrel are lucky enough to have mainland access directly across from the island. The owners of Squirrel Island own a teeny tiny sliver of land next to the Big Green Boathouse (former Steve Leach property now Marriott) on the mainland. This property is too small for a dock and it has a little pull up spot for a 14 +/- foot aluminum boat with a very small outboard on it. We watch many weekends as the renters leave and the new renters come and they traverse the channel back and forth numerous times with a loaded boat full of luggage, supplies, and people. This same scenario plays out every single weekend. So apparently these people want a no wake zone for their personal use of the channel so they and their renters have an easier time crossing the channel. I'm guessing, and I already saw it in the petitions, they don't "FEEL" safe and they want everyone else to go No Wake Speed because their dinghy only goes 5 MPH. :rolleye2:

FYI - I have never witnessed a close call with the aluminum boat. Yes there are plenty of large boat wakes in the channel and I am sure it is unnerving for those people that are stuck traversing the channel in a tiny aluminum boat with all the luggage and such but... Sorry a NWZ is not fair to everyone else on the lake that uses that channel to access the broads.

[MAXUM]

Cow Isl Time thanks for posting that PDF, very interesting read for sure.

If shore erosion is claimed as a reason to consider this NWZ should that not be quantified by the NH DES? I mean really one person went so far as to suggest that the erosion was so bad they had trees topple into the water. Why not have DES have a look to either confirm or deny this is a problem and submit an official opinion on the subject. Perception does not equal fact.

There is clearly some comments depicting a very scary, out of control, speed demon crowd whipping through that area on a regular basis. I find this offensive as I regularly travel through that area and never witnessed this nor fit the above description. Maybe a few yahoos do, but to lump every boater that passes through there in one category like that is shameful. As overly dramatic as some of the comments are something doesn't seem to add up. You'd think the MP would love to sit there and pinch people for breaking the law, seems like a no brainer, yet I find it ironic that nobody can produce a laundry list of accidents or tickets issued in this area, nor did the MP submit any kind of comment for or against this proposal. My thought is that if MP thought this was an area of grave concern they would have made that position known, yet they remain remarkably silent. Begs the question as to why.

Taking a video of the area in question while helpful obviously captures the worst case scenario and as such should be reviewed in the context in which is was recorded. If I were to submit a rebuttal time lapse video of that same area say weekdays over the summer or during the entire month of April, is that really a fair representation either?

If there ever was the need for legislative action, maybe this is the time where any petition of this kind when submitted requires that all claims be substantiated with factual data and evaluated before any action is taken or even considered.

[Kracken]

My family has a home located about 100 yards from the end of a very long NWZ on another lake. The only time wakes do not cause a problem is when Marine Safety is present. All other times boaters plow by sending wakes that destroy the shoreline. Part of the problem is the length of the NWZ. People become impatient and figure they are close enough to the end so they speed up throwing their vessel’s maximum wake. Others look for a LEO and when none are present, they take-off. Others simply don’t know the rules or don’t care. On most days I would not want to cross that channel swimming or in a kayak. There are many boats moving in opposite direction at speeds that limit maneuverability and vision. Every summer there are many minor accidents when one boat follows another too closely.

A Barber’s Pole NWZ would be very similar to our situation. I believe a NWZ would be detrimental to the residents of the area. There will be bigger wakes, more noise and more chaos. A boat traveling on plane throws a lot smaller wake than one at 10-15 mph which is exactly what the average speed will be in that area if a NWZ is implemented.

I don’t have a horse in this race. I don’t live there and have only been through there once or twice in the past 10 years. It makes no difference to me either way but I would hate to see any change that is a net negative for all.

[sunset on the dock]

To have a member of this forum such as SOTD step in and throw the comments that he has just irritates me to no end.
I just went over some of the letters and testimony posted by Cow Isl Time. I'm glad to see some of the other residents of the BP weighing in on an issue that very much affects them. Deja vu...there seems to be a four or five to one majority in favor. Especially compelling are some of the letters written by the islanders and their safety and erosion issues. Just reading this I would think they would do everything possible to keep a NWZ in place.

Most of what he has said is so completely and patently false I do not know where to begin. All it does is makes me want to go against such a proposal with such fervor that over my dead body it will pass.
Now that seems a bit overly dramatic. I hope the testimony of some of the many BP residents weighing in didn't additionally contribute to this state. Seriously, this is just a NWZ. We have compelling testimony on this thread now from the residents who are affected. I have to say I don't understand all of the histrionics put forth for the simple act of slowing down for two minutes. I mean, good grief, from the reaction here....you would think the residents of the BP were proposing throwing puppies in this narrow channel in November:emb:.

[VitaBene]

The part that some are also missing is that many of these laws are ambigious and difficult to enforce. Take the noise regulations. We have heard discussed how the offending boat needs to tested at a later date and by then the owner may have made modifications (temporary ones that is) so as to temporarily be compliant. And talk about a time and labor intensive enforcement of a law. Very much a waste of resources. And as SOTD keeps trying to point out, people who break these laws and sometimes flaunt it are why new laws are supported to try to fix the loopholes in the already existing law.
Someone said that if you can't get Al Capone for murder then at least get him on tax evasion. This couldn't apply more here and if I lived in the Barber Pole I would understand completely why they would want a NWZ. I hope they get it.

Regarding the noise through what will be the BP NWZ, if the boat is non-compliant (or even compliant but somewhat loud) with existing laws then the residents of the BP area are going to hear the thrumming of exhaust for 20 minutes not 1 or 2 not to mention the sounds of stereos and talking that carries so well across the water. (my apologies to Aimee Mann for stealing the title of my post from her fantastic song)

I guess we will see how it all plays out...


COW ISL TIME- thank you for posting the PDF, it made for interesting reading.

[OCDACTIVE]

Ok.. Look....... This has started turning into what we have tried to avoid. This is becoming a thread where people are depicting every word, every post and every comment to make a point..

Let me try to sum this up so that the rehtoric can stop.

1. Hazelnut lives there, he sees everything first hand, knows the people sending in the letters, obviously is an expert on the situation and is directly effected by its outcome. He is even on the fence about this. He realizes what implications could take place both ways and is simply asking for "all" resdients real or ficticious to have a chance to be heard. So let them.

2. this is not a noise issue, so lets not make it a noise related thread. If you want to discuss that, YET again................... start a new thread.

3. this is not a speed issue, so lets not make it speed related thread. If you want to discuss that, go elsewhere.

Obviously the letters are going to be askew because they were only from those trying to push it through and those who where lucky enough to hear about the hearing before hand. Saying this gives a good cross section of residents is like going to an old age home asking who supports the AARP.

So personally "I think" we should argue for a new hearing. If you are that passionate about it then go to said hearing and state your case, if not let those who are "real" residents have their say and sit back and see what happens.

Trying to turn this into something it is not, won't help anyone or get us anywhere.

[sunset on the dock]

Reading some of this written testimony makes me understand that any person or group interested in safety would want embrace this new NWZ.

[hazelnut]

I just went over some of the letters and testimony posted by Cow Isl Time. I'm glad to see some of the other residents of the BP weighing in on an issue that very much affects them. Deja vu...there seems to be a four or five to one majority in favor. Especially compelling are some of the letters written by the islanders and their safety and erosion issues. Just reading this I would think they would do everything possible to keep a NWZ in place.
Now that seems a bit overly dramatic. I hope the testimony of some of the many BP residents weighing in didn't additionally contribute to this state. Seriously, this is just a NWZ. We have compelling testimony on this thread now from the residents who are affected. I have to say I don't understand all of the histrionics put forth for the simple act of slowing down for two minutes. I mean, good grief, from the reaction here....you would think the residents of the BP were proposing throwing puppies in this narrow channel in November:emb:.

Again a misrepresentation, by you, of the actual facts. The people who sent letters were primarily from two families and some were renters of the cottage on Squirrel. Hardly representative of the residents of the Barbers Pole. Again SOTD you forget that I have a house there, that I actually have the facts. None of my neighbors were represented in those comments as none of my neighbors knew of the hearing until well after it was over. Also many of the residents of Tuftonboro Neck were not represented as proven by the gentleman who came over to my house two weekends ago circulating a petition for an additional hearing. He and several of his neighbors were expressing the same frustration with the lack of notification. Many of my neighbors and I are now in communications discussing our opinions on the matter and what our next step is. Many are remaining silent as there is a "catch 22," that I am very aware of. Many of us who actually live along the strip have this little voice in the back of our heads saying, "hmmmmm it would be nice not to have the wave action during the weekends."

My comment was dramatic indeed, to prove a point. Point being is that arrogant attitudes such as yours do more damage to your case. What you don't get, many others here do get it, that I was on the fence. I could have actually been persuaded to support a NWZ in the area. Two things changed my mind:

#1 I thought of others beside myself
#2 Attitudes of you and others that want to control every single aspect of the lake for personal and selfish agendas.

I completely understand and completely respect your opinion and your right to go slow and go no wake speed every single time you go boating. I completely agree with you that going no wake speed is a wonderful thing to do. But you do not and can not see anyone else's point of view and frankly I find it sad that you live in that world. Your attitude of "hey it doesn't bother me to slow down so the rest of you should just suck it up" is just so incredibly narrow minded. For once just step back, take a breath and realize that this issue will have a large impact on many people that live on the island. Also realize that I have many friends that live on Cow Island and in Orchard cove that use Pier 19 or Harilla Landing to dock their boats. This NWZ significantly increases their commute time. Think about it for one second. Every time I or any of my neighbors that live on the other side of the proposed NWZ have to go to the store or go to our vehicles we will have several minutes added to our commutes. It is possible that we may do this commute several times in a day.

So while you can be all cavalier in your attitude, understand that YES there is a larger impact to many involved in this issue. In other words, it is a hot button issue that we are a bit sensitive to. I would appreciate it if you would stick to facts and stop spinning the truth.

Thank You

[VtSteve]

Interesting reading, I hope I uploaded correctly

It truly is a small world isn't it?

[VtSteve]

I have to say I don't understand all of the histrionics put forth for the simple act of slowing down for two minutes. I mean, good grief, from the reaction here....you would think the residents of the BP were proposing throwing puppies in this narrow channel in November:emb:.

It's called honesty. The people that live there that have commented, are not getting emotional because of a NWZ, not at all. They are getting exited because most didn't know anything about the petition or hearing, and they think that most of the submitted information is a crock.

Most people can see that they are very upfront with their comments, and are still pondering this issue, and discussing this with their neighbors. That is, the ones that really do live there. No "Histrionics" at all, these people have some character, respect the rights of others, and feel that everyone should operate that way. Now, they all know what, and whom they're dealing with.

[Yankee]

A famous ball player once said: "This is deja-vou, all over again".

I find in this instance that that quote is very appropriate.

Who else is of the opinion that the needs of the few are outweighing the needs of the many here?

[ApS]

"...Obviously the letters are going to be askew because they were only from those trying to push it through and those who where lucky enough to hear about the hearing before hand..."
This is the fourth attempt at a Barber Pole NWZ: some became
com-pla-cent. :rolleye2:

(Speaking of the letters, some here haven't disclosed their personal interest.) :(

"...This has started turning into what we have tried to avoid...Hazelnut...is even on the fence about this..."
:confused: Umm...after some "emoting", didn't the quote go...

"...All it does is makes me want to go against such a proposal with such fervor that over my dead body it will pass...".
:confused: :confused:

"...2. this is not a noise issue, so lets not make it a noise related thread..."
Umm...any new No-Wake Zone puts the exhaust in the water—right where NH's newest noise-law is to measure it.

Something many here wished for... :rolleye2:

"...3. this is not a speed issue..."

I read the letters—raising of the night-time limit did affect lake residents' opinions.

Something many here wished for... :rolleye1:

Be careful what you wish for... :rolleye1: :rolleye1:

[hazelnut]

APS why is it you feel the need to parse text to support an agenda? Did you read the quote in context?

Ahh why am I bothering. This is quickly turning into a SL debate all over again. Any and all hope of a factual debate has long been destroyed by certain people hell bent on shutting threads down that don't meet their agenda. Even with moderation it is clear that a boating forum on winnipesaukee.com is and forever will be an impossible place for real discussion with factual statements. No instead we need to deal with APS and others that add absolutely NOTHING to the debate except half-hearted attempts to be witty that fall so short of the mark it is sad. It all adds up to derailing any conversation that could ever be considered constructive.

For the record APS yes on the fence here is the rest of the quote for those who do not want to go back and read it..

"...However, I have to take a step back though and really see how this affects me and my neighbors. Then I have to take a further step back and see how this affects the MANY friends that I have on this lake that live up in the Moultonboro Bay area and beyond. As I have said numerous times the passage of this NWZ would have immediate and positive benefits to my enjoyment of my property during the busy weekends. With that said I would be going against every fiber of my being supporting a law for my narrow agenda..."

The reality is that I am having a big struggle with this one. Balancing my needs against others enjoyment of the lake.

Whatever, I've said more than enough and I will bow out of the discussion until I have new information to report.

This is getting ridiculous. :rolleye2:

[jrc]

SOTD, I'm going to try a serious discussion one time, before this turns into us versus them again. Am I wasting my time? Are you just toying with us?

Let's assume we all agree that having no wake on the entire lake is the safest but not really practical.

So we need a meaningful method to decide where to put NWZ. What method would you suggest?

If the method is anyone who can gather 25 signatures gets a NWZ, then pretty quickly the whole lake will be a NWZ.

Anybody who opposes this NWZ is not anti-safety. The merits of the case needs to weighed, including concerns of the abutters and the general boating public. You can't leave it solely to the abutters, the lake is a playground and a means of transportation, both needs must be met.

[VtSteve]

My comment was dramatic indeed, to prove a point. Point being is that arrogant attitudes such as yours do more damage to your case. What you don't get, many others here do get it, that I was on the fence. I could have actually been persuaded to support a NWZ in the area. Two things changed my mind:

#1 I thought of others beside myself
#2 Attitudes of you and others that want to control every single aspect of the lake for personal and selfish agendas.



So while you can be all cavalier in your attitude, understand that YES there is a larger impact to many involved in this issue. In other words, it is a hot button issue that we are a bit sensitive to. I would appreciate it if you would stick to facts and stop spinning the truth.

Thank You

The Thanks Button is on the fritz?

Bravo Hazelnut, for getting to the point of the argument from your heart.

Perhaps this will finally result in people understanding the Why behind some of the more contentious issues on the lake. People should read the posts from Hazelnut's posts carefully, and fully understand who really cares about the lake, and your own rights as well. Once the man behind the curtain is found out, everybody's better off. These issues impact a tremendous amount of people, most of whom are pretty reasonable and caring people. Stick with those people and you'll be much better off.

HN and others were told that they were ignoring other's concerns. This thread points out what's really happening.

[OCDACTIVE]

Reading some of this written testimony makes me understand that any person or group interested in safety would want embrace this new NWZ.

Please stop alluding to what "groups" should and should not do. If you feel a group should do something, join that group and have a say, or start your own.

But continuously trying move an agenda through open ended statements and conjecture isn't helping the situation you apparently feel so strongly about.

[sunset on the dock]

SOTD, I'm going to try a serious discussion one time, before this turns into us versus them again. Am I wasting my time? Are you just toying with us?

Let's assume we all agree that having no wake on the entire lake is the safest but not really practical.

So we need a meaningful method to decide where to put NWZ. What method would you suggest?

If the method is anyone who can gather 25 signatures gets a NWZ, then pretty quickly the whole lake will be a NWZ.

Anybody who opposes this NWZ is not anti-safety. The merits of the case needs to weighed, including concerns of the abutters and the general boating public. You can't leave it solely to the abutters, the lake is a playground and a means of transportation, both needs must be met.
Ok, I'll try again. I've even read the letters and testimony again. We are talking of an area with a width of 390' between buoy and Squirrel Island. Put a raft or a swimmer out there, say 150' off shore and the legal area between swimmer and buoy is 90'. My point, clearly this is a narrow area and similar to other NWZ's in width. Take a look at the Farm/Chase NWZ for example. Saying "If the method is anyone who can gather 25 signatures gets a NWZ, then pretty quickly the whole lake becomes a NWZ" is simply being inflammatory because clearly this is not how it works and you know it. The procedure goes from obtaining signatures to scheduling a hearing to hearing testimony to writing letters in support or against. Then the decision is made by the authorities weighing all of the facts and testimony. It is not a decision left solely to the abutters.
To answer your question: "So we need a meaningful method to decide where to put NWZ. What method would you suggest?" , the answer is as clear as the procedure outlined above which you were already aware of. And then to suggest that somehow this process will turn the whole lake into a NWZ is simply preposterous and again inflammatory nonsense. This sky is falling mentality is all too familiar to me from previous debates. And this is also why I feel some of the arguments but forth by some like HN and VtSteve are somewhat disengenuous and comes from the mentality held by some that a boat only has 2 speeds, stop and full throttle. There seem to be about forty responses in the posted NWZ document in favor of a NWZ yet HN seems to have put forth that this whole NWZ could be the result of the people in that little house on Squirrel island who go across the channel in their small boat. Are we to believe there are forty families in that little house? Oh Calcutta, call the board of health:).

[jrc]

SOTD, I meant nothing inflamatory. The process, as described, only works if the public knows the process is happening, so their comments can be heard.

In this case the petitioners obviously knew, but other interested parties found out too late to effectively understand the situation and comment. So basing a decision on the facts that 25 people signed a petition and 40 people (mostly including these 25 and their family) agreed with the premise is premature.

Your prior posts seemed to indicate that the information provided in the petition and hearing minutes was enough to make decision, so that leads to my statement that we can't make these decisions based solely on petitions.

If the need is obvious, why not wait until the all the interested parties are heard from? The MP is not going to get the zone setup and marked before next season, so what's the hurry? Why not let the people be heard?

[topwater]

One good thing that I can think of, since it will be a no wake zone, A NEW RAFTING AREA !! SOTD, which house is yours, I'll throw a anchor and have a cocktail with you. :D

[jmen24]

So in theory.

I am going to petition for a NWZ in an area of my choosing. Talk to a few property owners about the idea of increased value to their property and possible higher rental fees, because they will be located in a NWZ and things may be quieter and less boats will travel through that zone.

I ask the folks in support of my idea to ask family and friends that come to their home to sign the petition. We get 28 sigs without having to expand to neighbors. The notice of the hearing gets posted in a Southern New Hampshire Newspaper (that requires that you are a home subscriber in order to read certain pages of the paper), knowing full well that most of the folks in this area are reading a different paper by looking at the paper box or lack there of. Same folks that signed the petition send in letters and I as well as a few others sign in to give a verbal reason for why this is needed. The motion passes and the neighbors of my new friend (original supporter), are left wondering who started this and how this happened without them being made aware of the situation.

I think that sums up the current process and I as a non-lakefront property owner, could start all of this on a wim and at my choosing.

[elchase]

Could someone please confirm the address to which one should write during the appeal period to support (or not) this NWZ?

I had the following address:
Curt Duclos
NH Dept of Safety
33 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03305-0001

This is the address we all wrote to when NHRBA was successfully petitioning to get a NWZ in front of a house on Governor's Island two years ago. Is it still accurate?

[hazelnut]

Could someone please confirm the address to which one should write during the appeal period to support (or not) this NWZ?

I had the following address:
Curt Duclos
NH Dept of Safety
33 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03305-0001

This is the address we all wrote to when NHRBA was successfully petitioning to get a NWZ in front of a house on Governor's Island two years ago. Is it still accurate?

Yes I do believe that is it. Also, I think it is supposed to go through the whole Statehouse process as well. Thanks for posting the information. I really hope we get big numbers out on this one. This has far reaching affects on many people that use the lake. Not just the tiny fraction of us that live in the area. So again I really appreciate you helping to publicize this. If you could please spread the word and get some letters written from anyone and everyone. We don't want this to slide under the radar. We want as many voices to be heard on this.

That is the key here folks. Get the word out, if the majority of the boaters on the lake support a NWZ then wonderful, I get the added bonus of less wake damage to my boats as they sits at the docks. If not then I will accept it and just deal with the wave action as I have for almost 10 years now.

Thanks again el. If I find out any further information regarding hearings and such I will post it here.

[VitaBene]

Could someone please confirm the address to which one should write during the appeal period to support (or not) this NWZ?

I had the following address:
Curt Duclos
NH Dept of Safety
33 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03305-0001

This is the address we all wrote to when NHRBA was successfully petitioning to get a NWZ in front of a house on Governor's Island two years ago. Is it still accurate?

Hi bud,

You have the address correct but there is a new commissioner:

John J. Barthelmes
Department of Safety
James H. Hayes Safety Building
33 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03305

Regards

[Turtle Boy]

Hmmmm...reading some of the letters sent to the DOS in support of a NWZ...well it just seems to me that any reasonable person reading these concerns of the people who live there....how could you not agree to a NWZ. And as mentioned above...390'...that's narrow. And it is not unreasonable to suggest that any individual or group who is safety minded would support such a measure. That's just common sense.

[VtSteve]

Great day for a break with this weather and all.

Don's been out on the boat lately taking some great HD video. I know I appreciate it a lot, I've watched quite a few on the YouTube channel as well. Let's let Don get back to work on the water, I think he's really on to something here.

These videos are the Best addition to the forum I've seen yet, and better implemented than many sites I've seen.

Bravo Don! and Thanks

[sunset on the dock]

One good thing that I can think of, since it will be a no wake zone, A NEW RAFTING AREA !! SOTD, which house is yours, I'll throw a anchor and have a cocktail with you. :D

I seldom turn down an opportunity for cocktails. Pick me up at my dock. I have a friend in the BP and if I showed up in my easily recognizable boat and anchored then I would be in hot water with both sides in this NWZ argument:laugh::laugh::laugh:.
BTW not sure I could ever be happy living in the BP...way too much loud fast boat traffic funneling through such a narrow area. :laugh:

[Yankee]

So, where does it leave those who frequent the lake, but have no lakefront property? Do not the residents of this state have any legal say in this matter?

[OCDACTIVE]

Hmmmm...reading some of the letters sent to the DOS in support of a NWZ...well it just seems to me that any reasonable person reading these concerns of the people who live there....how could you not agree to a NWZ. And as mentioned above...390'...that's narrow. And it is not unreasonable to suggest that any individual or group who is safety minded would support such a measure. That's just common sense.

Against my better judgement I will respond...

1. Again please see above regarding the cross section of the people who wrote into this "secret" hearing. This was an extremely biased group, not to mention from a first hand account (hazelnut) these letters came from many people at the same house. No one is arguing for or against the NWZ only for a fair hearing from all residents in the area and those effected.

2. Any arguement can be made for safety when dealing with water and moving objects. Boating is inherently a danger upon itself. A human can not breath underwater. If a boat fails there is a danger that a person may be immersed in said water and not be able to breath. So I guess any group that advocates boating is against safety??? :confused: Do you see how narrow minded your arguement can be? seriously???

3. Anyone that reads biased opinion and doesn't have the facts nor data can easily be convinced there is a safety issue, when there isn't one in the first place. (where have we heard that before!)

4. Arguing a group isn't for safety is plain inflamatory. We can not all be perfectly protected in every circumstance on the entire lake. To believe this would ludicrous... What we need to do from a safety stand point is to utilize resources where safety problems exist and impliment them to the best of their ability. Also to educate boaters so less problems exisit in the first place so less resources are needed.

We can not continue to implement more and more rules, regulations, laws, etc etc and just expect the problem to be fixed. If people aren't aware of these regulations due to lack of education we have not solved a thing.

Please stop arguing what groups should and should not do in the name of safety unless you are willing to get involved or start your own group.

It is easy to stand back and say how a house should be built but much more difficult to grab a hammer and actually do it!

[jrc]

Why do you have to be a property owner to write a letter? I think anyone can send a letter or even sign a petition

[hazelnut]

Hmmmm...reading some of the letters sent to the DOS in support of a NWZ...well it just seems to me that any reasonable person reading these concerns of the people who live there....how could you not agree to a NWZ. And as mentioned above...390'...that's narrow. And it is not unreasonable to suggest that any individual or group who is safety minded would support such a measure. That's just common sense.

TB,

Thanks so much for your concern. We are ok as of right now. All is well in the BP area. The only issue I have is large wakes. My children swim freely without fear and I kayak and float freely on my blow-up lounge chair. :laugh: Seriously next time you are boating through the area I am the guy on the bright orange blow up float that resembles a recliner. Stop by and say Hi. I can assure you that there is PLENTY of room for all to enjoy the area.

I am a very reasonable person as are the many people who live in the area. We are considering an interesting proposal for a NWZ. Heck if it passes I'll have tons more room to float out in my bright orange barca-lounger. :laugh:

Honestly though all kidding aside, the safety issue is silly to bring up. The BP area has a sparkling record of safety. No collisions, no deaths, heck not even a close call for that matter. The beauty of the area is that it is a straight shot with a generous amount of room for two boats to safely pass each other traveling in opposite directions. This isn't a blind corner like the NWZ near BI's house. I for one applaud the implementation of that NWZ as well as the one at Governors and Eagle, heck I can just go around the other side of Eagle if I'm in a hurry.

If I was a selfish man I'd be on my rooftop clamoring for a NWZ in front of my house, you should see the beating my boats take on a busy Saturday. It is maddening. I can't afford a boat lift on my measly teacher's salary. :( Anyway, I am extending an invitation to you and SOTD, actually anyone who is interested, to come by my house #65 Yellow Cape, and hang out on Saturday for the afternoon, for a cocktail, or mocktail if you are driving, to witness the "madness" :laugh:. Common sense tells me you will decline as you might be too scared to pilot your vessel through this "dangerous area" ;). Either way the offer stands. I'd love to have you guys over. My twin 6 year old boys and my 3 year old daughter will be the ones swimming in front of my house :eek: oh the horror. :laugh: Just be careful not to run them over. I often fear for their safety in this scary dangerous area. :emb:

[MAXUM]

So, where does it leave those who frequent the lake, but have no lakefront property? Do not the residents of this state have any legal say in this matter?

Why would you think otherwise? These hearings are open to the public, well that is when you find out about them. Now certainly comments by those that are property owners in the area affected may carry a little more consideration then anyone else, but that certainly doesn't mean that your opinion doesn't matter. Whether or not it'll weigh into any decision made is anyone's guess.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Ok, I'll try again. I've even read the letters and testimony again. We are talking of an area with a width of 390' between buoy and Squirrel Island. Put a raft or a swimmer out there, say 150' off shore and the legal area between swimmer and buoy is 90'. My point, clearly this is a narrow area and similar to other NWZ's in width. Take a look at the Farm/Chase NWZ for example. Saying "If the method is anyone who can gather 25 signatures gets a NWZ, then pretty quickly the whole lake becomes a NWZ" is simply being inflammatory because clearly this is not how it works and you know it. The procedure goes from obtaining signatures to scheduling a hearing to hearing testimony to writing letters in support or against. Then the decision is made by the authorities weighing all of the facts and testimony. It is not a decision left solely to the abutters.
To answer your question: "So we need a meaningful method to decide where to put NWZ. What method would you suggest?" , the answer is as clear as the procedure outlined above which you were already aware of. And then to suggest that somehow this process will turn the whole lake into a NWZ is simply preposterous and again inflammatory nonsense. This sky is falling mentality is all too familiar to me from previous debates. And this is also why I feel some of the arguments but forth by some like HN and VtSteve are somewhat disengenuous and comes from the mentality held by some that a boat only has 2 speeds, stop and full throttle. There seem to be about forty responses in the posted NWZ document in favor of a NWZ yet HN seems to have put forth that this whole NWZ could be the result of the people in that little house on Squirrel island who go across the channel in their small boat. Are we to believe there are forty families in that little house? Oh Calcutta, call the board of health:).

For the length of this discussion I have refrained from not posting, not taking the bait so to speak, but the continued false statements and utter selfishness finally got to me.

Please, the Farm/Chase area you mention is not in any way comparable. If you are at all familiar with that area you would know that at least one half of that channel is full of rocks. Consequently, the true navigable portion is much less than 150 feet.

Please, SOTD, this kind of grossly misstating the facts is what bothers so many of us. I looked at the petition and the names of people I know who are in the Winter Harbor/Wolfeboro area surprised me. These people barely know where the Barber Pole is and do not do any boating north of it. Those of us in areas such as Chase Point, Melvin Village, Bald Peak, 20 Mile Bay, Winaukee, Moultonborough Bay, Suissevale, Balmoral, Buzzell Cove, Tanglewood/Crosswinds, Langdon Cove, Wentworth Shores, Richardson Shores, Toltec, Arcadia, Greens Basin, three marinas (Ambrose Cove, Lanes End, and Melvin Village), plus five public launches, and several private association launches would all be adversely effected by your NWZ. What about the boat(s) going to places like the huge YMCA facilities on Sandy Island? Do you really think those boats are going to go through your NWZ at headway speed? They make large wakes at speeds just above headway speed.

Sorry for such a long post. Hazelnut, I cannot applaud you enough for your rational and unselfish discussion of the issues. You cannot be commended enough for your refusal to go along with a small number of people with personal agendas.

[Greene's Basin Girl]

So, where does it leave those who frequent the lake, but have no lakefront property? Do not the residents of this state have any legal say in this matter?
Where is the Barber's Pole?

[ApS]

Thanks to this discussion (and a check of my chart), I see that the BP NWZ area has always been in easy reach of my neighbors and me. :look: If the new NWZ moves "hurried boaters" to the other side of Little Bear Island, a very large area west of Tuftonboro Neck will allow peaceful boating for everyone. :coolsm:

"...Hmmmm...it is not unreasonable to suggest that any individual or group who is safety minded would support such a measure. That's just common sense..."
Some individual or group could get mud on their faces. Cue a famous Edmund Burke quotation here: "...while a few good men do nothing".

"...How many people that bought their houses knew what the situation was in front of their house when they bought it and are now trying to change it...?"
1) Read the letters: some writer's families have been there since the mid-1800s. :cool:

2) We forget that renters are supporting a local economy, while miles of Lake Winnipesaukee have huge McMansions that are empty. :(

3) What happened to "This Lake is for Everybody". :confused:

BTW: One of those letters includes somebody—in opposition—whose nearby island includes a NWZ. :confused:

"...The wind and rain blew hard all night and waves washed up on my front lawn. The white caps were big and the rough water caused my boat to rock against the dock and pull at it's lines. Does anyone know where I can submit a petition to get this corrected or have the rough water taken off the lake...?"
Yup... C'mon over—tie up to my dock... :)

Just be sure that your boat size is greater than the wakes' crests, so it won't hit bottom while we're working out the details of your petition. :rolleye2: :eek2: :eek:

[Irrigation Guy]

APS: now there is a selfish response, wanting new no wake zone for better sailing. Picture from foul weather day too, likely from another location. :(

[Turtle Boy]

For the length of this discussion I have refrained from not posting, not taking the bait so to speak, but the continued false statements and utter selfishness finally got to me.

Please, the Farm/Chase area you mention is not in any way comparable. If you are at all familiar with that area you would know that at least one half of that channel is full of rocks. Consequently, the true navigable portion is much less than 150 feet.

I would check the area between Farm and Chase again. Clearly the distance between the buoy and Chase is much wider than 150' and is comparable in width to the area in the BP between Squirrel and the buoy. And as for all the suffering imposed on residents to the north (slowing down for 2 minutes) I also am impressed with the issues put forth by the residents of Squirrel and L. Birch Isl. who have to deal with this all the time. That's my take on your utter selfishness comment.

As far as OCD's comments about groups supporting this NWZ: "Please stop arguing what groups should and should not do in the name of safety unless you are willing to get involved or start your own group. ", that's just plain silly. Many of us have been involved...but we choose which groups to associate with. And there is indeed a precedent for safety groups supporting a NWZ. The Eagle/Governor's Island NWZ was supported by NHRBA.

[HUH]

I would like to ask the question again.. What would be so bad about a NWZ in that area? Please list your reasons for not wanting it. Besides the standard less laws is better statement.
I happen to live in a NWZ.. and I have a boat capable of easily breaking the speed limit..Just wanted to get those facts in the open so I dont get thrown in that pot.

[VtSteve]

I would suggest that anyone with a video camera go to the area in question and take some footage, and post it here on the You Tube channel. Tomorrow or Friday would be nice for quiet weekday footage, then, Saturday.

Please, no Mushers :laugh:

[OCDACTIVE]

As far as OCD's comments about groups supporting this NWZ: "Please stop arguing what groups should and should not do in the name of safety unless you are willing to get involved or start your own group. ", that's just plain silly. Many of us have been involved...but we choose which groups to associate with. And there is indeed a precedent for safety groups supporting a NWZ. The Eagle/Governor's Island NWZ was supported by NHRBA.

If you are involved I applaud you whichever group you are associated with. My contention was that many stand on the sidelines and say what groups should be doing without actually being part of them.

[classic22]

I would like to ask the question again.. What would be so bad about a NWZ in that area? Please list your reasons for not wanting it. Besides the standard less laws is better statement.
I happen to live in a NWZ.. and I have a boat capable of easily breaking the speed limit..Just wanted to get those facts in the open so I dont get thrown in that pot.

I for one think that we are going down a slippery slope with NWZs in general.
There are certain areas of the lake that are and have been NWZ for ever. For example small coves where there would be no natural wave or wind action, or where there is an obvious and I mean obvious to EVERYONE of an issue regarding safety and or less than 150 ft. Otherwise if its 150 ft or more we dont need NWZs. Lets face it, wind, waves, and boats cause the lake to get rough sometimes, but is this really a reason to start plunking down NWZs in places that have survived just fine with out them for decades? And while we are on NWZs, the worst one is the eagle/governors...theres more wakes within that zone on a busy sat or sun than before they implemented that one.

[OCDACTIVE]

I for one think that we are going down a slippery slope with NWZs in general.
There are certain areas of the lake that are and have been NWZ for ever. For example small coves where there would be no natural wave or wind action, or where there is an obvious and I mean obvious to EVERYONE of an issue regarding safety and or less than 150 ft. Otherwise if its 150 ft or more we dont need NWZs. Lets face it, wind, waves, and boats cause the lake to get rough sometimes, but is this really a reason to start plunking down NWZs in places that have survived just fine with out them for decades? And while we are on NWZs, the worst one is the eagle/governors...theres more wakes within that zone on a busy sat or sun than before they implemented that one.

Agreed Classic.. However I kinda enjoy coming out of eagle now.. I personally love the wakes. OCD rarely gets to use her hull for whats its designed to do on the lake: smashing through wakes. Those are one of the places due to the large wakes she performs brilliantly (at 45 mph of course)

[Turtle Boy]

I would like to ask the question again.. What would be so bad about a NWZ in that area? Please list your reasons for not wanting it. Besides the standard less laws is better statement.
I happen to live in a NWZ.. and I have a boat capable of easily breaking the speed limit..Just wanted to get those facts in the open so I dont get thrown in that pot.

Very good post and there's one more reason FOR a NWZ that has to be considered. People have bragged on this forum and others that they regularly break the SL on Winnipesaukee. We have even had the president of SBONH last year brag on this forum of how he "almost doubled" the speed limit( I hope Sunset's friend in the BP brings that one up if there's a rehearing). And of course people tend to tweak any SL, water or highway. So getting back to the narrow area between the buoy and island...it's been noted that boats scream through there just 150' from this small island...45 MPH?, 55 MPH?, 65 MPH? My wife has commented in the past when going through the BP "Boy, I wouldn't want to live on that island". And I can't imagine boats coming by my house that fast. Now I hear it coming..."why not enforce the laws we already have?" to which Sunset's Al Capone analogy would apply.
As far as the "under the radar" comments I don't blame the BP residents one bit not wanting people from all over the lake weighing in on their "horrible inconvenience" when it's the residents of the area who have to live with this all the time. So much for boating etiquette. And when I see the shameless way that boaters from all over the country were invited to sign the SBONH petition with comments like "Your lake could be next" on forums like offshoreonly.com I tend to side with these people in the BP even more.
And one more reason to support a NWZ. We have heard from those who wish to abolish a SL on the lake. If there were no SL boats could legally tear through this narrow area at 70 MPH. Now I think it's unlikely that the SL could ever be abolished given the strong support seen on both sdes of the aisle but it's just one more reason to support this NWZ. I also wonder how likely a new hearing on the NWZ is. My guess is that the DOS would take the position of "hey, it was published in local papers and on the T'boro web site, so tough. You snooze, you lose."

[Kracken]

Hi Turtle,

Just so you know, OCD was referring to doubling the speed limit when he was out in the ocean, maybe it was Virginia but it was definitely not on Winnipesauke. I am sure it was an innocent mistake on your part.

I know OCD can speak for himself but he is limited on posts per day.

Have a good day, nice hearing from you again.

[VitaBene]

Very good post and there's one more reason FOR a NWZ that has to be considered. People have bragged on this forum and others that they regularly break the SL on Winnipesaukee. We have even had the president of SBONH last year brag on this forum of how he "almost doubled" the speed limit( I hope Sunset's friend in the BP brings that one up if there's a rehearing). And of course people tend to tweak any SL, water or highway. So getting back to the narrow area between the buoy and island...it's been noted that boats scream through there just 150' from this small island...45 MPH?, 55 MPH?, 65 MPH? My wife has commented in the past when going through the BP "Boy, I wouldn't want to live on that island". And I can't imagine boats coming by my house that fast. Now I hear it coming..."why not enforce the laws we already have?" to which Sunset's Al Capone analogy would apply.
As far as the "under the radar" comments I don't blame the BP residents one bit not wanting people from all over the lake weighing in on their "horrible inconvenience" when it's the residents of the area who have to live with this all the time. So much for boating etiquette. And when I see the shameless way that boaters from all over the country were invited to sign the SBONH petition with comments like "Your lake could be next" on forums like offshoreonly.com I tend to side with these people in the BP even more.
And one more reason to support a NWZ. We have heard from those who wish to abolish a SL on the lake. If there were no SL boats could legally tear through this narrow area at 70 MPH. Now I think it's unlikely that the SL could ever be abolished given the strong support seen on both sdes of the aisle but it's just one more reason to support this NWZ. I also wonder how likely a new hearing on the NWZ is. My guess is that the DOS would take the position of "hey, it was published in local papers and on the T'boro web site, so tough. You snooze, you lose."

TB, are you saying that you "tweak" the speed limit? I have never exceeded the SL on this lake. I have gone through the BP on plane and at cruising speed, causing little wake. I have also encountered sailboats and canoes in the BP area and I slowed to NW speed (and created a greater wake when doing so)

What you don't get is that all of the taxpayers of NH own this lake. Littoral rights end at the waterline (perhaps BI can chime in on this, he has a firm grasp of that issue, or search for some of his posts on the matter). So those that abut the BP may have a greater vested interest in the area, they do not have more "rights" in determining what happens there.

What are you doing on offshoreonly? Got a little closet cowboy in you?

[NoBozo]

Hi Turtle,

Just so you know, OCD was referring to doubling the speed limit when he was out in the ocean, maybe it was Virginia but it was definitely not on Winnipesauke. I am sure it was an innocent mistake on your part.

I know OCD can speak for himself but he is limited on posts per day.

Have a good day, nice hearing from you again.

Besides that, ......The only way OCDs boat will do 90mph, is when he's going over Niagara Falls. :D :D :D NB

[DEJ]

TB, please get you facts straight, I know that might be a stretch but I am going to try anyway.

OCD never stated he almost doubled the speed on Lake Winnipesaukee. More spin and your usual approach of outright lies is wearing thin.

[sunset on the dock]

If nothing else, I'd ask you to at least read Hazelnut's posts before you come back spewing agenda and lobbing grenades. To paraphrase for you, he has very clearly stated over and over that a NWZ is not needed

Apparently there at least 40+ people who feel differently, and some who get the worst of the onslaught on the 2 smaller islands certainly could have an opinion different from HN's in his spot further back on the big island. I wouldn't like those boats tearing so close(as close as 150') to my house all day long. Saying that a NWZ is not needed does not necessarily make it the truth.

[DEJ]

SOTD, Saying that a NWZ is needed does not necessarily make it the truth either.

To make an informed decision we need to hear from others as well as the folks in that immediate area, that is all some are asking here, what harm could that be? After all the lake is for the enjoyment of all NH residents, and they have just as much a say about this issue as the immediate BP property owners. Hope to see you at the appeal hearing if there is one. Hnut, can you please keep us current on that if you hear anything. Thank you.

[Dhuberty24]

[QUOTE=Turtle Boy;137994]Very good post and there's one more reason FOR a NWZ that has to be considered. People have bragged on this forum and others that they regularly break the SL on Winnipesaukee. We have even had the president of SBONH last year brag on this forum of how he "almost doubled" the speed limit( I hope Sunset's friend in the BP brings that one up if there's a rehearing).



This is not a speed limit debate. You should put your head back in your shell. Like I have said before I live there and there's no speeding problem, and no noise problem.

[Irrigation Guy]

I have an idea...lets make the broads a NO WAKE ZONE too. Surely some people go screaming by Rattlesnake Island at 45 mph and less than 150' from shore scaring people on the island and in row boats/kayaks/ and canoes. :rolleye2:

[elchase]

Thanks again el.
I hope this one last post can get through without editing. If it is, then I promise this will be the LAST time I ever try to opine on this site. Moderating is one thing, but when a post gets edited in a way that has its intent reversed, it should say so.

Thanks Hazelnut for the thought, but you should know that my post was edited in a way that gave its meaning a 180. I can't say how much of this post gets through, but I won't be surprised if the only thing that shows up is "Thanks Hazelnut".

I support a NWZ at the Barber's Pole. Knowing that probably 9 out of every 10 people that write in will support it was the reason I provided the address. You few can take advantage, but I'm confident that many more will write in from my side. And in this case, letters coming in with postmarks from California, Washington State, Saskatchewan, Hong Kong, and Mickey Mouse will surely not get counted.

The point of my pre-edited post was to point out the irony and blatant phoniness of this opposition. It is so obvious as to be laughable how most of the group objecting to the BP NWZ is only doing so because some of the petitioners were supporters of another issue. This has nothing to do with safety, any slippery slope, or even the Barber's Pole. It is just an attempt at revenge.

Pretty much every one of this same small group was a member of NHRBA, who petitioned the state to have the waters just in front of your biggest contributor's McMansion made a personal NWZ. The arguments FOR that NWZ apply identically to this case, but ironically are being turned upside down here. Compare the situation when NHRBA (you all) was arguing for a NWZ at Eagle Island to benefit the guy who donated the most money to NHRBA's anti-SL efforts to the efforts here to quash a NWZ in a much more deserving area, full of less wealthy people who don't have $40K breakwaters to protect their boats and children. Compare the people posting here and writing to Safety now to oppose the BP NWZ to those who posted here and wrote in to support the Eagle Island NWZ. The hypocrisy is startling.

Webmaster,
Hopefully, you will put this post through complete and unedited. There is nothing in here that is worse or new compared to other posts on this thread, so I can see no good reason for you to block or edit it. If it does make it through, then I promise you I will never darken the door of this forum again. But if it is not to be posted in its unedited entirety, please just don't post it at all. Please don't put my name on things I did not write.

[DEJ]

EL, you need to move on. NHRBA no longer exists. A new group has been formed, some former NHRBA members yes, many new members have joined as a result of the law you pushed so hard to get. They are looking to join a group dedicated to real safety and pass laws based on facts, not emotion or feel good legislation. I will miss you.

[tis]

As others have implied, we really shouldn't need official "No Wake Zones". If people obeyed the headway speed withing 150', we wouldn't need them to be officially no wake.

[hazelnut]

I hope this one last post can get through without editing. If it is, then I promise this will be the LAST time I ever try to opine on this site. Moderating is one thing, but when a post gets edited in a way that has its intent reversed, it should say so.

Thanks Hazelnut for the thought, but you should know that my post was edited in a way that gave its meaning a 180. I can't say how much of this post gets through, but I won't be surprised if the only thing that shows up is "Thanks Hazelnut".

I support a NWZ at the Barber's Pole. Knowing that probably 9 out of every 10 people that write in will support it was the reason I provided the address. You few can take advantage, but I'm confident that many more will write in from my side. And in this case, letters coming in with postmarks from California, Washington State, Saskatchewan, Hong Kong, and Mickey Mouse will surely not get counted.

The point of my pre-edited post was to point out the irony and blatant phoniness of this opposition. It is so obvious as to be laughable how most of the group objecting to the BP NWZ is only doing so because some of the petitioners were supporters of another issue. This has nothing to do with safety, any slippery slope, or even the Barber's Pole. It is just an attempt at revenge.

Pretty much every one of this same small group was a member of NHRBA, who petitioned the state to have the waters just in front of your biggest contributor's McMansion made a personal NWZ. The arguments FOR that NWZ apply identically to this case, but ironically are being turned upside down here. Compare the situation when NHRBA (you all) was arguing for a NWZ at Eagle Island to benefit the guy who donated the most money to NHRBA's anti-SL efforts to the efforts here to quash a NWZ in a much more deserving area, full of less wealthy people who don't have $40K breakwaters to protect their boats and children. Compare the people posting here and writing to Safety now to oppose the BP NWZ to those who posted here and wrote in to support the Eagle Island NWZ. The hypocrisy is startling.

Webmaster,
Hopefully, you will put this post through complete and unedited. There is nothing in here that is worse or new compared to other posts on this thread, so I can see no good reason for you to block or edit it. If it does make it through, then I promise you I will never darken the door of this forum again. But if it is not to be posted in its unedited entirety, please just don't post it at all. Please don't put my name on things I did not write.

Again, THANKS EL.

I appreciate your position and I appreciate the publicity on this matter. What part of my post wasn't clear to you? I am confused:confused:

I live in the area and I win in either scenario. If it passes I don't have to buy a boat lift. If it fails to pass then my commute to the island is not lengthened. I am paraphrasing for you because apparently you never read anything I ever wrote in this thread. It is pretty obvious to just about everyone else in this thread minus you, SOTD and TB, no surprise, that I stand to benefit from the passage of the NWZ.

My personal position is that I publicly do not support it due to the fact that it is not warranted. Selfishly I welcome it as my boats will no longer take a beating on the weekends.

It is so sad that you three continue to make this an us v. them argument and drag up tired old arguments from a completely separate issue. This is not the same thing. Remember this is essentially my back yard. I know what is going on every single weekend. I can assure you a NWZ is not needed in this area. However, if the majority of the boaters on the lake deem it so then I will accept it and reap the benefits of this change.

Again, EL I thank you sincerely from the bottom of my heart for publicizing this and hope that you continue to get the word out as I will. If all voices are heard and this passes I will feel much better about it. I am thoroughly disappointed in the process so far as a tiny, tiny minority comprising of two or three families snuck in a hearing under the radar without the rest of the abutters having any say in the matter. I would like to widen the scope and see people such as yourself and others here on this forum and the rest of the boaters on the lake have their say.

Thank you again.
HN:)

[NoBozo]

I can't even read through these posts anymore. So much garbage. I was elated this afternoon when the ban was lifted. .....Now I don't know what to say... :eek: ELCHASE...SUNSET..TURTLE...??? Give me a break. NB

PS: Did I miss someone......?

[OCDACTIVE]

I know better then this but seriously....................

I had to change my ignore list just to see it for myself.. As quickly as he's back he says he is gone again.................. I think this is the 5th time around.... Lets see how long this lasts..

But just a correction. The "new" group that is being alluded to of course is SBONH... I think out of our entire membership which has grown profoundly, there are may be three NHRBA past members.. I would love to find out where this data is taken from..... Oh thats right data isn't needed... It "feels" like there are more then three.. :laugh:

Anyway, I hope that there is another hearing and I appreciate EL for posting the information to send in your request to ask for said hearing. I am sure when all area residents and those directly effected are heard from then a much more clearer picture can be drawn.

Again, I am not saying one is needed or not, but everyone should be given the chance to be heard.

Also I want to Thank TB for once again taking a post completely out of context.. Last year purchasing my boat I doubled the speed limit....................... in LONG ISLAND SOUND!!!... Any one know if I should let Gilford know about that? whats the penalty for doing something completely legal... Please........

P.S. No need to make up statistics or data about "groups" there are plenty of members here that would be happy to answer any questions with actualy facts.. That is if you are interested in that.

[VitaBene]

I hope this one last post can get through without editing. If it is, then I promise this will be the LAST time I ever try to opine on this site. Moderating is one thing, but when a post gets edited in a way that has its intent reversed, it should say so.

Thanks Hazelnut for the thought, but you should know that my post was edited in a way that gave its meaning a 180. I can't say how much of this post gets through, but I won't be surprised if the only thing that shows up is "Thanks Hazelnut".

I support a NWZ at the Barber's Pole. Knowing that probably 9 out of every 10 people that write in will support it was the reason I provided the address. You few can take advantage, but I'm confident that many more will write in from my side. And in this case, letters coming in with postmarks from California, Washington State, Saskatchewan, Hong Kong, and Mickey Mouse will surely not get counted.

The point of my pre-edited post was to point out the irony and blatant phoniness of this opposition. It is so obvious as to be laughable how most of the group objecting to the BP NWZ is only doing so because some of the petitioners were supporters of another issue. This has nothing to do with safety, any slippery slope, or even the Barber's Pole. It is just an attempt at revenge.

Pretty much every one of this same small group was a member of NHRBA, who petitioned the state to have the waters just in front of your biggest contributor's McMansion made a personal NWZ. The arguments FOR that NWZ apply identically to this case, but ironically are being turned upside down here. Compare the situation when NHRBA (you all) was arguing for a NWZ at Eagle Island to benefit the guy who donated the most money to NHRBA's anti-SL efforts to the efforts here to quash a NWZ in a much more deserving area, full of less wealthy people who don't have $40K breakwaters to protect their boats and children. Compare the people posting here and writing to Safety now to oppose the BP NWZ to those who posted here and wrote in to support the Eagle Island NWZ. The hypocrisy is startling.

Webmaster,
Hopefully, you will put this post through complete and unedited. There is nothing in here that is worse or new compared to other posts on this thread, so I can see no good reason for you to block or edit it. If it does make it through, then I promise you I will never darken the door of this forum again. But if it is not to be posted in its unedited entirety, please just don't post it at all. Please don't put my name on things I did not write.

Hmmm... I was never a member on the NHRBA nor did I know that that group or offshoreonly.com existed until you or your band of merry men started posting about them.

You were edited because you are what you are- a stirrer of pots who adds very little value to this great forum.

Have a nice day and life, because I am pretty sure your post got through in its entirety.

Best regards!

[winni83]

I will miss reading the creative and self serving fiction contained in most of the posts from this now departed member of the group of three.

[VtSteve]

Thankfully, the thread isn't about them, nor anyone else. It's about a proposed NWZ. We've yet to hear from real people with real names, nor see the video show of the area. We've heard from a couple of residents that don't think it's an issue to propose a NWZ, but maybe someone that owns a little island with rental units and a small boat does.

The bottom line is this. People that use vague language, and language that is meant to illicit fear and prompt action, always stand back and question. I'm sure many still want these issue to be shelved, and never hear the dialogue. Or would you just rather they change the lake as you sleep through it?

[TiltonBB]

Step back and take a look at the whole lake. Think of how many people would love to have a personal "No wake" zone in front of their house. Think about what you are really asking for. Think about how the lake will change with more rules and regulations. Think about what that would mean if you decided to take a 3 hour cruise around the lake and had to slow down to 5 MPH at 15-25 no wake zones. Is this what you really want?

There is not a single waterfront home that does not see the effects of rain, wind, waves, ice, snow, and boat wakes in the course of a year. It is a lake. These things happen, make an adjustment and move on. Life is too short!

People need to get over their "It's all about me" attitudes and live and let live.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

I am a little confused by the need for some nwz. I can see it near a marina or other area where waves would be of exceptional concern. My difficulty is with the logic that some shore line is more special than other. That some swimmers need protection from boats and waves more than others. The existing rule of keeping 150 feet from shore and other boats seems like it would satisfy the need to protect all concerned. You don't have to be in narrow section of the lake to have people plowing 50 feet from the shore. Lets enforce the laws we have and stop adding more.

[trfour]

Ya, kind'a like enforcing a mandatory law what 'axes for the use of lawnmowers at local barber shops! :confused:

Laws are already in place! Lets enforce them first!

We all know only too well that the state has cut the NHMP's budget, and that there are some short hairs what want to build a whole 'nother world over here.

Now, keep this page open! WE will try to come out the other side!



Terry
_______________________________________

[ApS]

If you're 150' away from ANY shoreline, you're operating within the limits of the law on any part of the lake - "tearing" or not.

One would also expect that the 40+ people that feel differently would live on or near the BP, not just renters.
Akkkk !!! :confused: :eek: Renters are People, too! :eek2: :eek:

APS: now there is a selfish response, wanting new no wake zone for better sailing. Picture from foul weather day too, likely from another location. :(
Nope. (and Nope "2").

Nope 1: That was a day of full-sun at my Lake Winnipesaukee cottage. ;) We've kept our tall hemlocks and giant white pines untrimmed, so the dock is often shaded in the late afternoon. The entire photo appeared HERE (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=128557&postcount=35) in the mooring whip thread.

Please note my use of "hurried-boaters" resorting to the Little Bear passage. They are the boaters I don't wish to have near me or any of my neighbors.

Nope 2: Peaceful boaters.

By "peaceful boating", I include about 90% of all Winnipesaukee boaters.

Of the other 10%, I use my silent signaling device—in a highly-gratifying directing of those 10% away from my intended passageway. (This device was previously nicknamed a "PED").

Sometimes, this warning must be given in behalf of nearby boaters and tubers in peril on the lake. :eek:

Nothing has improved my own boating enjoyment—and safety—more than communicating with other boaters in that way. :cool: Many regulars—mostly local ski-boats—have been "flash-conditioned" into giving proper way to all the boats along the two miles of shoreline that we share.

I like to think that the PED (and I) have lots to do with that. :)

"... I happen to live in a NWZ.. and I have a boat capable of easily breaking the speed limit..Just wanted to get those facts in the open so I don't get thrown in that pot.
Another writer—in opposition—lives in an adjacent NWZ. 'Any idea why this poster would deny a NWZ to shoreline dwellers at Barber's Pole? :confused:

"...I personally love the wakes. OCD rarely gets to use her hull for whats its designed to do on the lake: smashing through wakes. Those are one of the places due to the large wakes she performs brilliantly (at 45 mph of course)..."
Just as the NHRBA did two years ago, you have a ton of responsibility riding on your shoulders—take care—in any event. Have you yet read the advisory inside the smallest of your PFDs? :(

Why hasn't this PFD warning been fully documented on this region's most successful forum—and growing? :confused: That is one INFO-mercial all of Winnipesaukee's boaters could applaud! :coolsm:

BTW:
I once lived only a ten minute drive from the most famous designer of those boats. He was rubbed-out in a drug-based Mafia "hit". (Of which I know quite a bit :eek2: .)

His boats were designed for the dangerous waters directly in front of his shop. His boats (though slow by comparison to the "tunnel-hulls") are still very popular on The Ocean, and were not designed for inland waters.

[chipj29]

I hope this one last post can get through without editing. If it is, then I promise this will be the LAST time I ever try to opine on this site. Moderating is one thing, but when a post gets edited in a way that has its intent reversed, it should say so.

Thanks Hazelnut for the thought, but you should know that my post was edited in a way that gave its meaning a 180. I can't say how much of this post gets through, but I won't be surprised if the only thing that shows up is "Thanks Hazelnut".

I support a NWZ at the Barber's Pole. Knowing that probably 9 out of every 10 people that write in will support it was the reason I provided the address. You few can take advantage, but I'm confident that many more will write in from my side. And in this case, letters coming in with postmarks from California, Washington State, Saskatchewan, Hong Kong, and Mickey Mouse will surely not get counted.

The point of my pre-edited post was to point out the irony and blatant phoniness of this opposition. It is so obvious as to be laughable how most of the group objecting to the BP NWZ is only doing so because some of the petitioners were supporters of another issue. This has nothing to do with safety, any slippery slope, or even the Barber's Pole. It is just an attempt at revenge.

Pretty much every one of this same small group was a member of NHRBA, who petitioned the state to have the waters just in front of your biggest contributor's McMansion made a personal NWZ. The arguments FOR that NWZ apply identically to this case, but ironically are being turned upside down here. Compare the situation when NHRBA (you all) was arguing for a NWZ at Eagle Island to benefit the guy who donated the most money to NHRBA's anti-SL efforts to the efforts here to quash a NWZ in a much more deserving area, full of less wealthy people who don't have $40K breakwaters to protect their boats and children. Compare the people posting here and writing to Safety now to oppose the BP NWZ to those who posted here and wrote in to support the Eagle Island NWZ. The hypocrisy is startling.

Webmaster,
Hopefully, you will put this post through complete and unedited. There is nothing in here that is worse or new compared to other posts on this thread, so I can see no good reason for you to block or edit it. If it does make it through, then I promise you I will never darken the door of this forum again. But if it is not to be posted in its unedited entirety, please just don't post it at all. Please don't put my name on things I did not write.

elchase, just so you know, I am a member of SBONH, but was never a member of NHRBA even though I am strongly against speed limits on the lake.
I have no position regarding the NWZ here, as I am rarely in that area. I would defer my opinion to the impacted landowners. ALL OF THEM.

[VtSteve]

Nothing infuriates nasty people more than being nice :)

Hazelnut has stated his reasons for and against the NWZ in front of his place. I can well understand both sides. The thing that should worry people is that the reasons given For the NWZ by the usual group, are apparently false. Hazelnut does not view this as anything more than a win for him personally. But he's grown up enough to realize what it means for many other people.

That's the kind of person that the lake needs.

[classic22]

Akkkk !!! :confused: :eek: Renters are People, too! :eek2: :eek:


Nope. (and Nope "2").

Nope 1: That was a day of full-sun at my Lake Winnipesaukee cottage. ;) We've kept our tall hemlocks and giant white pines untrimmed, so the dock is often shaded in the late afternoon. The entire photo appeared HERE (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=128557&postcount=35) in the mooring whip thread.

Please note my use of "hurried-boaters" resorting to the Little Bear passage. They are the boaters I don't wish to have near me or any of my neighbors.

Nope 2: Peaceful boaters.

By "peaceful boating", I include about 90% of all Winnipesaukee boaters.

Of the other 10%, I use my silent signaling device—in a highly-gratifying directing of those 10% away from my intended passageway. (This device was previously nicknamed a "PED").

Sometimes, this warning must be given in behalf of nearby boaters and tubers in peril on the lake. :eek:

Nothing has improved my own boating enjoyment—and safety—more than communicating with other boaters in that way. :cool: Many regulars—mostly local ski-boats—have been "flash-conditioned" into giving proper way to all the boats along the two miles of shoreline that we share.

I like to think that the PED (and I) have lots to do with that. :)


Another writer—in opposition—lives in an adjacent NWZ. 'Any idea why this poster would deny a NWZ to shoreline dwellers at Barber's Pole? :confused:


Just as the NHRBA did two years ago, you have a ton of responsibility riding on your shoulders—take care—in any event. Have you yet read the advisory inside the smallest of your PFDs? :(

Why hasn't this PFD warning been fully documented on this region's most successful forum—and growing? :confused: That is one INFO-mercial all of Winnipesaukee's boaters could applaud! :coolsm:

BTW:
I once lived only a ten minute drive from the most famous designer of those boats. He was rubbed-out in a drug-based Mafia "hit". (Of which I know quite a bit :eek2: .)

His boats were designed for the dangerous waters directly in front of his shop. His boats (though slow by comparison to the "tunnel-hulls") are still very popular on The Ocean, and were not designed for inland waters.

maybe its just me but....WOW!

[TiltonBB]

Akkkk !!! :confused: :eek: Renters are People, too! :eek2: :eek:


BTW:
I once lived only a ten minute drive from the most famous designer of those boats. He was rubbed-out in a drug-based Mafia "hit". (Of which I know quite a bit :eek2: .)

His boats were designed for the dangerous waters directly in front of his shop. His boats (though slow by comparison to the "tunnel-hulls") are still very popular on The Ocean, and were not designed for inland waters.

I was with Bobby S. in Miami during February of this year. Bobby was a close personal friend of Don's and he is the one who pulled Don Aronow out of his Mercedes after he was shot. It wasn't about drugs! Sorry you misunderstood!

[gtagrip]

I wouldn't like those boats tearing so close(as close as 150') to my house all day long. Saying that a NWZ is not needed does not necessarily make it the truth.

I thought with passing of the SL that this was not an issue anymore. I thought the lake was a much safer and serene place over the past 2 years?
What happened?:rolleye2:

[sunset on the dock]

I hope this one last post can get through without editing. If it is, then I promise this will be the LAST time I ever try to opine on this site. Moderating is one thing, but when a post gets edited in a way that has its intent reversed, it should say so.

Thanks Hazelnut for the thought, but you should know that my post was edited in a way that gave its meaning a 180. I can't say how much of this post gets through, but I won't be surprised if the only thing that shows up is "Thanks Hazelnut".

I support a NWZ at the Barber's Pole. Knowing that probably 9 out of every 10 people that write in will support it was the reason I provided the address. You few can take advantage, but I'm confident that many more will write in from my side. And in this case, letters coming in with postmarks from California, Washington State, Saskatchewan, Hong Kong, and Mickey Mouse will surely not get counted.

The point of my pre-edited post was to point out the irony and blatant phoniness of this opposition. It is so obvious as to be laughable how most of the group objecting to the BP NWZ is only doing so because some of the petitioners were supporters of another issue. This has nothing to do with safety, any slippery slope, or even the Barber's Pole. It is just an attempt at revenge.

Pretty much every one of this same small group was a member of NHRBA, who petitioned the state to have the waters just in front of your biggest contributor's McMansion made a personal NWZ. The arguments FOR that NWZ apply identically to this case, but ironically are being turned upside down here. Compare the situation when NHRBA (you all) was arguing for a NWZ at Eagle Island to benefit the guy who donated the most money to NHRBA's anti-SL efforts to the efforts here to quash a NWZ in a much more deserving area, full of less wealthy people who don't have $40K breakwaters to protect their boats and children. Compare the people posting here and writing to Safety now to oppose the BP NWZ to those who posted here and wrote in to support the Eagle Island NWZ. The hypocrisy is startling.

Webmaster,
Hopefully, you will put this post through complete and unedited. There is nothing in here that is worse or new compared to other posts on this thread, so I can see no good reason for you to block or edit it. If it does make it through, then I promise you I will never darken the door of this forum again. But if it is not to be posted in its unedited entirety, please just don't post it at all. Please don't put my name on things I did not write.

El...your post was a breath of fresh air which "cut to the chase" (pun intended) in terms of what is going on behind the scenes. I intend to harass, implore, and cajole you to stay on the forum. It brought to Mrs. Sunset's mind a post you wrote a short while back that summarized what we're up against in terms of preserving the lake:

"A perfect example of why this loud little gang is losing its influence and privileges. This small group that talks so loud needs to linger on this forum to find soul mates...even during motorcycle week... there is simply no place else they can find peopel who think the way they do. All one needs to do to understand the mentality is to hear the argument above; "I put up with your quiet, so you should put up with my loud noise". The saddest part to me is that people from outside the region see this forum and might get the impression that these few jerks represent the attitude and personality of the people here...which could not be further from the truth. It's not "kind of sad"...its "very sad". "

Reading some of the testimony from the people who endure and experience what happens in the BP brings this into perspective.

[hazelnut]

Nothing infuriates nasty people more than being nice :)

Hazelnut has stated his reasons for and against the NWZ in front of his place. I can well understand both sides. The thing that should worry people is that the reasons given For the NWZ by the usual group, are apparently false. Hazelnut does not view this as anything more than a win for him personally. But he's grown up enough to realize what it means for many other people.

That's the kind of person that the lake needs.

Steve, I grew up watching the "NIMBY" attitude of people and it always sickened me to no end. In case anyone does not know what "NIMBY" stands for I will spell it out. "Not In My Back Yard=NIMBY" As I have approached 40 years old I am disgusted to see this attitude actually GROW!!!

These people supporting this NWZ are doing this solely for selfish personal reasons. They could at least come out and be honest about it. They won't though because the DOS wouldn't grant the NWZ, or would they? Anyway, I can assure every reader of this site and this thread that the truth of the matter is that a NWZ is not warranted in this area. I can not stress this enough.

There are 4 possible ways for people from the Northeast part of the lake to access the main body of the lake. 2 of those points are already NWZ's. Long Island Bridge, Hole-In-The-Wall. Currently we have two spots that are not NWZ's Point Sara (Between Little Bear and Long Island) and The Barbers Pole. Out of all these areas the Barbers Pole Channel is the widest, straightest, channel with more than adequate space to handle the traffic.

My only issue is the wake action that whips my boats around at the dock. I hate it. HOWEVER, I bought the house knowing FULL WELL that I was buying a house that sat in a busy channel that had large wake action on weekends. Therefore, I deal with it and I am not going to try to change the lake to support my narrow agenda. Instead I have grown to love watching the many boats pass by on weekends. I've probably seen almost every boater on this site pass through at one point or another. It seems that every 5th or 6th boats beeps and waves. Most I know some I probably know but don't recognize. We get a good laugh out of the tubers and waterskiers trying to use the channel on a Saturday. I can't tell you how funny that can be to watch. I will say though that everyone slows down and not once have I seen a close call. Just angry boaters forced to come off plain because someone is in the water waiting to ski or tube. :laugh:

All in all the channel is very safe and I and my neighbors have no problem swimming, kayaking, and boating in front of our houses. The Squirrel Island property is a small island that has hundreds and hundreds of feet of waterfront. As does Little Birch. The fact that any of these people are complaining about feeling unsafe is so silly I can not laugh hard enough at them. :laugh: Both of these Islands have areas on the backside close to Cow where the water is calm and no boats can access the area. Essentially they have private swimming areas on the back side of their islands. Yet, they want to swim in the channel.:confused::confused::confused::confused:
These people may need some psychiatric help. Please come visit me on Saturday, OCD might be swinging by. I will walk all of you through this area and show you the thousands of feet of swimming and recreation area these two Islands have that is away from the channel.

This is a plea to the membership of this site. Please sift through the rhetoric and make note of the people on this site that are trying to derail this discussion. Note that even though they "won" their cause they are still trying to divide and derail because they can not let it go. They are hung up on old arguments. This is not an us v. them argument. This is a completely separate and unique situation that has nothing to do with the old arguments.

I will disclose to you all that YES I am a member of SBONH. In fact I was a founding member along with many on this site. I was never a member of any other organization. This was my first. I happened to like Scott and his point of view. I can honestly tell you we don't sit around and collude on these items. In fact SBONH has no position on this issue and Scott and I have talked and he understands where I am coming from and appreciates why I might actually like a NWZ. He has been friends of my Island Neighbors LONG before I ever purchased my house so he knows the area just as well as I do and knows how the wave action can be frustrating to us and our boats.

Bottom line a NWZ is not warranted. A hearing was held, no neighbors were notified. All we want is a fair hearing where all points of view are heard. If the majority want it I will accept it and enjoy the benefits. If the majority does not want it then I will be happy that my commute to my vehicle won't be lengthened.

FYI-When I say all points of view I mean it. I hope the renters, boaters, sailors, kayaker's, swimmers, residents, non-residents all show up and give their opinions. I think Vita, Scott, LI and the rest of you need to rally your neighbors to have their voices heard on this as well. I know you guys live north of the area and will have to deal with this NWZ every time you go boating.

[SIKSUKR]

I would like to quote something just posted but from my standpoint,there is a mirror facing these people.

"The saddest part to me is that people from outside the region see this forum and might get the impression that these few jerks represent the attitude and personality of the people here...which could not be further from the truth. It's not "kind of sad"...its "very sad". "

There is only one group of "a few jerks" represented on this forum that are far outweighed by the rest.Take off the blinders.

[hazelnut]

Hello,

Please note that the following videos were taken on a Saturday Morning BEFORE 11am. This is what I would refer to as the "Control." This is what the area looks like 90% of the time, including weekdays, and weekends. The other 10% of the time is what has sparked this controversial measure from being proposed. I will be on the lake this weekend on Saturday (Supposed to be a sparkling weather day) and I will videotape the busier times from 12-2pm which I consider to be peak time. Now, before you challenge me that I will only show the calmer times during this period, I invite any supporter of the NWZ to my house between 12-2 on Saturday to "keep me honest." My goal is not to paint a perfect picture. There are plenty of knuckleheads that pass through this channel. Trust me when I tell you I can not wait to capture the chaos. What will be left to determine is whether or not existing laws are being broken and greater enforcement is necessary. So without further ado I bring you "The Deadly Barbers Pole" on a typical Saturday Morning.


Proposed NWZ:

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

Kayaking and Canoeing on a Saturday Morning:

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

[OCDACTIVE]

SOTD, I should be arriving at Hazelnuts house around 2 PM on Sat. I am taking him to drop off some Tshirts to some SL supporters and SL opposers. You are welcome to come and join us for the ride if you would like?

[VitaBene]

El...your post was a breath of fresh air which "cut to the chase" (pun intended) in terms of what is going on behind the scenes. I intend to harass, implore, and cajole you to stay on the forum. It brought to Mrs. Sunset's mind a post you wrote a short while back that summarized what we're up against in terms of preserving the lake:

"A perfect example of why this loud little gang is losing its influence and privileges. This small group that talks so loud needs to linger on this forum to find soul mates...even during motorcycle week... there is simply no place else they can find peopel who think the way they do. All one needs to do to understand the mentality is to hear the argument above; "I put up with your quiet, so you should put up with my loud noise". The saddest part to me is that people from outside the region see this forum and might get the impression that these few jerks represent the attitude and personality of the people here...which could not be further from the truth. It's not "kind of sad"...its "very sad". "

Reading some of the testimony from the people who endure and experience what happens in the BP brings this into perspective.

Thank you for reminding us of why ElChase has been exposed for what he is!

Siksukr nailed it: Mirror, Mirror

[VitaBene]

Steve, I grew up watching the "NIMBY" attitude of people and it always sickened me to no end. In case anyone does not know what "NIMBY" stands for I will spell it out. "Not In My Back Yard=NIMBY" As I have approached 40 years old I am disgusted to see this attitude actually GROW!!!

These people supporting this NWZ are doing this solely for selfish personal reasons. They could at least come out and be honest about it. They won't though because the DOS wouldn't grant the NWZ, or would they? Anyway, I can assure every reader of this site and this thread that the truth of the matter is that a NWZ is not warranted in this area. I can not stress this enough.

There are 4 possible ways for people from the Northeast part of the lake to access the main body of the lake. 2 of those points are already NWZ's. Long Island Bridge, Hole-In-The-Wall. Currently we have two spots that are not NWZ's Point Sara (Between Little Bear and Long Island) and The Barbers Pole. Out of all these areas the Barbers Pole Channel is the widest, straightest, channel with more than adequate space to handle the traffic.

My only issue is the wake action that whips my boats around at the dock. I hate it. HOWEVER, I bought the house knowing FULL WELL that I was buying a house that sat in a busy channel that had large wake action on weekends. Therefore, I deal with it and I am not going to try to change the lake to support my narrow agenda. Instead I have grown to love watching the many boats pass by on weekends. I've probably seen almost every boater on this site pass through at one point or another. It seems that every 5th or 6th boats beeps and waves. Most I know some I probably know but don't recognize. We get a good laugh out of the tubers and waterskiers trying to use the channel on a Saturday. I can't tell you how funny that can be to watch. I will say though that everyone slows down and not once have I seen a close call. Just angry boaters forced to come off plain because someone is in the water waiting to ski or tube. :laugh:

All in all the channel is very safe and I and my neighbors have no problem swimming, kayaking, and boating in front of our houses. The Squirrel Island property is a small island that has hundreds and hundreds of feet of waterfront. As does Little Birch. The fact that any of these people are complaining about feeling unsafe is so silly I can not laugh hard enough at them. :laugh: Both of these Islands have areas on the backside close to Cow where the water is calm and no boats can access the area. Essentially they have private swimming areas on the back side of their islands. Yet, they want to swim in the channel.:confused::confused::confused::confused:
These people may need some psychiatric help. Please come visit me on Saturday, OCD might be swinging by. I will walk all of you through this area and show you the thousands of feet of swimming and recreation area these two Islands have that is away from the channel.

This is a plea to the membership of this site. Please sift through the rhetoric and make note of the people on this site that are trying to derail this discussion. Note that even though they "won" their cause they are still trying to divide and derail because they can not let it go. They are hung up on old arguments. This is not an us v. them argument. This is a completely separate and unique situation that has nothing to do with the old arguments.

I will disclose to you all that YES I am a member of SBONH. In fact I was a founding member along with many on this site. I was never a member of any other organization. This was my first. I happened to like Scott and his point of view. I can honestly tell you we don't sit around and collude on these items. In fact SBONH has no position on this issue and Scott and I have talked and he understands where I am coming from and appreciates why I might actually like a NWZ. He has been friends of my Island Neighbors LONG before I ever purchased my house so he knows the area just as well as I do and knows how the wave action can be frustrating to us and our boats.

Bottom line a NWZ is not warranted. A hearing was held, no neighbors were notified. All we want is a fair hearing where all points of view are heard. If the majority want it I will accept it and enjoy the benefits. If the majority does not want it then I will be happy that my commute to my vehicle won't be lengthened.

FYI-When I say all points of view I mean it. I hope the renters, boaters, sailors, kayaker's, swimmers, residents, non-residents all show up and give their opinions. I think Vita, Scott, LI and the rest of you need to rally your neighbors to have their voices heard on this as well. I know you guys live north of the area and will have to deal with this NWZ every time you go boating.

Chris,

This is one of the most thoughtful and well reasoned posts I have ever read on this forum. This IS not an us vs. them thing but for some reason there is a group on the forum that would like to portray it as being so.

Thank you for being honest and reasonable.

[Turtle Boy]

I hope this one last post can get through without editing. If it is, then I promise this will be the LAST time I ever try to opine on this site. Moderating is one thing, but when a post gets edited in a way that has its intent reversed, it should say so.

Thanks Hazelnut for the thought, but you should know that my post was edited in a way that gave its meaning a 180. I can't say how much of this post gets through, but I won't be surprised if the only thing that shows up is "Thanks Hazelnut".

I support a NWZ at the Barber's Pole. Knowing that probably 9 out of every 10 people that write in will support it was the reason I provided the address. You few can take advantage, but I'm confident that many more will write in from my side. And in this case, letters coming in with postmarks from California, Washington State, Saskatchewan, Hong Kong, and Mickey Mouse will surely not get counted.

The point of my pre-edited post was to point out the irony and blatant phoniness of this opposition. It is so obvious as to be laughable how most of the group objecting to the BP NWZ is only doing so because some of the petitioners were supporters of another issue. This has nothing to do with safety, any slippery slope, or even the Barber's Pole. It is just an attempt at revenge.

Pretty much every one of this same small group was a member of NHRBA, who petitioned the state to have the waters just in front of your biggest contributor's McMansion made a personal NWZ. The arguments FOR that NWZ apply identically to this case, but ironically are being turned upside down here. Compare the situation when NHRBA (you all) was arguing for a NWZ at Eagle Island to benefit the guy who donated the most money to NHRBA's anti-SL efforts to the efforts here to quash a NWZ in a much more deserving area, full of less wealthy people who don't have $40K breakwaters to protect their boats and children. Compare the people posting here and writing to Safety now to oppose the BP NWZ to those who posted here and wrote in to support the Eagle Island NWZ. The hypocrisy is startling.

Webmaster,
Hopefully, you will put this post through complete and unedited. There is nothing in here that is worse or new compared to other posts on this thread, so I can see no good reason for you to block or edit it. If it does make it through, then I promise you I will never darken the door of this forum again. But if it is not to be posted in its unedited entirety, please just don't post it at all. Please don't put my name on things I did not write.

I think that's the diffence between the 2 groups. Some of the officers of SBONH as well as officers in Winniopposition (the ones listed on the left hand side of the Winniopposition page) seem to be chiming in against a NWZ. Definitely a conflict of interest and a group that was started to oppose the perm. SL might well be expected to do this. Safety?...this group is a wolf in sheep's clothing IMO. Reading some of the testimony from the BP residents, it seems to me too that they deserve this NWZ. All this talk about the whole lake becoming a NWZ is ridiculous as has been said. Not all areas of the lake are this narrow( ? did they say 400'). There are so many more boats than in the past and as the economy recovers they will increase further.
I'll eat my words about the wolf in sheep's clothing if SBONH were to support the NWZ but I can't see that happening.

[VtSteve]

That's a pretty silly statement to make TB. Pure facts, not lies and innuendo, have not made the case for a NWZ there. Believe it or not, not every area on the lake should be a NWZ, call me crazy.

Using the same type of BS, I could make a much better case for a NWZ from Sally's Gut all the way to the end of Meredith Neck and Stonedam Island. So if you don't support that one, you don't support safety? SBONH members look at each issue individually. There appears to be a very good discussion on every subject, and there are always two or more sides taken depending on the issue. None of you wishes to discuss this matter with Hazelnut, since you have no idea what to do if you can't be nasty.

The problem with trying to support your views and statements with lies, is that you're always bound to become inconsistent. One lie in one part of the lake seems to contradict another lie about another area. This NWZ argument has so many position inconsistencies, that I think you guys have to meet and craft some sort of position statement. The letters sent in, and your group's statements to support the NWZ could be picked apart by an eighth grader.

I would have assumed that El would have to be the foremost authority on virtually any area on the lake. This is a guy that logged over 1,000 hours during one of the worst boating summers ever.

[OCDACTIVE]

I'll eat my words about the wolf in sheep's clothing if SBONH were to support the NWZ but I can't see that happening.

TB what part of no-commital do you not understand? If you read everyones posts here, especially Hazelnuts he has said he can see both sides of the arguement.

We have posted both the positives and negatives..

The one aspect that pretty much everyone here understands and agrees with, minus 3 people, is that we are not arguing for or against. We are arguing that people were not notified or were completely unaware of said hearing.

I don't want to speculate that this was the intention but it sure seems that way. Regardless of which side of the coin you are on for any argument, if you can get your side heard without others knowing then you come off as the majority.

Now I am not saying that those who want to the NWZ are "not" the majority, they actually may be... But we can only determine this by a hearing that has been publized to anyone and everyone that wants to be heard. Even your Comrade in arms EL realizes this, hence why he posted the contact information.

I am utterly confused why you are arguing any futher? I am confused why you keep bringing up sbonh in your arguement? We (sbonh) have taken a middle stance until all the facts and opinions of those who want to be heard are heard.

Perhaps you can use your energy in presenting your misdirection tactics to actually getting the word out about setting up another hearing. If you and friends are the sure that the majority wants the NWZ then awesome for you! Go out and have them petition for a new hearing and let their voices be heard.

Otherwise please go hide under your bridge until you can spout off some more false statements.

Take care buddy.

[ApS]

"...Annie's secret decoder ring..."
If you'd been at ForumFest early, I could have demonstrated the PED to you—and any others concerned with boating safety.

:) It's a simple thing: it refects sunlight as a super-bright signaling device. :look: It's not expensive—as most are free parts, and are being recycled. :)

It doesn't cost anything, so it doesn't matter that it can't float. It promotes instant safety—sometimes at a threat one mile distant. :eek2:

maybe its just me but....WOW!
You saw that I regard 90% of all boaters as "peaceful"? :cool:

That a larger part of the lake is opened up for boating recreation? :)

You do—or don't—acknowledge Renters...as People? :confused:

You think "Deep-Vees" are faster than "Tunnel-Hulls"? :laugh:

I'd really like to hear from LocalRealtor about my "fakery". :rolleye2:

Thanks for your assessment, anyway. :)

I was with Bobby S. in Miami during February of this year. Bobby was a close personal friend of Don's and he is the one who pulled Don Aronow out of his Mercedes after he was shot. It wasn't about drugs! Sorry you misunderstood!
Bobby was long-gone when I became involved. :rolleye1:

Sorry you're not getting it.:rolleye2:

"...My goal is not to paint a perfect picture...I can't wait to capture the chaos..."
:look: I wanna see the part where BP wakes toss the Boston Whaler up on the dock!!! :banana: :look: :banana:

[VitaBene]

I think that's the diffence between the 2 groups. Some of the officers of SBONH as well as officers in Winniopposition (the ones listed on the left hand side of the Winniopposition page) seem to be chiming in against a NWZ. Definitely a conflict of interest and a group that was started to oppose the perm. SL might well be expected to do this. Safety?...this group is a wolf in sheep's clothing IMO. Reading some of the testimony from the BP residents, it seems to me too that they deserve this NWZ. All this talk about the whole lake becoming a NWZ is ridiculous as has been said. Not all areas of the lake are this narrow( ? did they say 400'). There are so many more boats than in the past and as the economy recovers they will increase further.
I'll eat my words about the wolf in sheep's clothing if SBONH were to support the NWZ but I can't see that happening.

TB,

SBONH was formed to promote safety and boater education on NH's bodies of water including Lake Winnipesaukee. SBONH at no time opposed the SL but did advocate that the 2 year study period that was part of the original law be carried out.

Some members of SBONH may have opposed speed limits in general, primarily because they (I am one of them) felt that if efforts to enforce existing laws, such as the 150' rule, were enhanced the need for a SL would be negated. Those same boaters felt that the resources of the Marine Patrol had been stretched thin through budget cuts (the budget was subsequently raided again this year to the tune of $700K) and that their scant resources should not be spent in staffing speed traps on the Lake. I would prefer the MP spend their time ridding the Lake of reckless operators, OUI offenders, and those that violate the other important safety laws on the lakes and shore of NH.

SBONH looks at each issue individually, reasonably and prudently. I am proud to be a member of SBONH as well as an officer of the organization. I am proud of the work we have done with the LRPS to promote Vessel Inspections as well as some of the initiatives we are working on that have yet to be publicized.

We welcome ALL safe boaters as members regardless of whether they support SLs or not.

[JTA]

Here is my take on the NWZ (originaly posted on the Cow Island Forum)

My place on Cow is a bit north of buoy 17. I get to see all of the "action" there. The majority of the time there is no problem with boat traffic (of course there are always the Captain Boneheads). The main problem is for a few hours on each of the weekend days ... mostly folks not observing the 150' law. I don't think the area warrants a NWZ.

In addition, the worst wake problem (actually damaging) is caused by the large cruisers some of whom like to cruise at maximum wake-producing speed.
The biggest noise problem is caused by the few Formula-style boats who like our area because it is relatively calm; they like to let 'er rip when coming through.

Still, no NWZ is warranted.

(I am a neighbor to the north of Hazelnut and have been there for 35 years)

[COW ISL TIME]

I'm posting the original petition submitted to DOS for the NWZ. you can't even make this stuff up. I have often wondered what the age of the three people that keep stirring the pot is, I suspect 70 plus with nothing better to do. I hope I have up loaded this correctly this is all very new to me

[hazelnut]

:look: I wanna see the part where BP wakes toss the Boston Whaler up on the dock!!! :banana: :look: :banana:

I'll be sure to post it. hahahaha Hasn't happened yet by Man oh man there have been times where I swear it was going to happen. :eek: Sometimes the waves crash over the patio and sweep a chair into the water. :(

My place on Cow is a bit north of buoy 17. I get to see all of the "action" there. The majority of the time there is no problem with boat traffic (of course there are always the Captain Boneheads). The main problem is for a few hours on each of the weekend days ... mostly folks not observing the 150' law. I don't think the area warrants a NWZ.

To put this comment in context a bit more people should understand that JTA is a retired educator with several years experience on the lake. Notably as he said 35+ years with a house in this location. JTA has seen the growth in traffic, noise, boat population and he would know better than anyone on this forum whether the area warrants a NWZ. He is a couple of houses away from me. Although we don't appreciate the same style of boats and have differing opinions on Jet Ski's and Baseball Teams :laugh: I respect his positions. This is yet another example of a long time resident, and true resident he is as it is his home, who's voice was not heard during this secret hearing. I can assure you there are plenty more individuals that feel just as he does. Now if we press JTA I am sure he will answer exactly as I have, that we would reap many benefits from a NWZ but we both realize that it is not warranted.

I won't speak any more for JTA but I thought some perspective was needed so people understood that JTA may have different viewpoints on many issues on the lake but we both share frustration on how this was handled and that a small minority snuck this through without letting anyone know.

To refer to the petitioners as the "majority" as three people on this thread have done so is downright laughable and silly. The majority have not been heard. Once we have a real hearing on the matter we will see what the real majority has to say. If the majority supports it after a real hearing, not the complete joke of a hearing that took place, we will accept it and bask in the glow of calm waters at our docks. Either way life is good baby! :D

[VitaBene]

If you'd been at ForumFest early, I could have demonstrated the PED to you—and any others concerned with boating safety.

:) It's a simple thing: it refects sunlight as a super-bright signaling device. :look: It's not expensive—as most are free parts, and are being recycled. :)

It doesn't cost anything, so it doesn't matter that it can't float. It promotes instant safety—sometimes at a threat one mile distant. :eek2:


You saw that I regard 90% of all boaters as "peaceful"? :cool:

That a larger part of the lake is opened up for boating recreation? :)

You do—or don't—acknowledge Renters...as People? :confused:

You think "Deep-Vees" are faster than "Tunnel-Hulls"? :laugh:

I'd really like to hear from LocalRealtor about my "fakery". :rolleye2:

Thanks for your assessment, anyway. :)


Bobby was long-gone when I became involved. :rolleye1:

Sorry you're not getting it.:rolleye2:


:look: I wanna see the part where BP wakes toss the Boston Whaler up on the dock!!! :banana: :look: :banana:

I think when Classic22 said wow it was because that is all one can usually say when they try to decipher one of your posts that are pieced together out of "parsed text" (please read that to mean snippets taken out of context from other's posts).

I have to ask a questions of you: What threat do you encounter a mile away that would require you to use your signaling device? A mile is a long way off in any boating situation and allows for a lot of course changes prior to having to give way to your boat, sail or otherwise.

[winni83]

I seriously question the wisdom of using such a device. Were such a device used to intentionally reflect sunlight back into the eyes of the operator of a boat and thereby limit, hinder or otherwise interfere with his or her vision, it would seem to me that such action would constitute an “unsafe” boating practice even if it did not run afoul of civil or criminal law [e. g. intentionally blinding the driver of an on coming vehicle with high beams], especially if there were ample evidence of bragging about using such a device to ward off perceived “threats”

[VtSteve]

I would have thought the reflection off the tinfoil hat would have been enough to ward off anything :laugh:



Crud, did I just say that?




Yup.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Picture from another thread on the subject.
Seems like room for safe passage if the rules are followed. Maybe MeeNMac's suggestion of some lane markers to keep it simple.
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4024&stc=1&d=1279993924

[ApS]

"...I think when Classic22 said wow it was...when ...one of your posts...are pieced together out of "parsed text"...

(...snippets taken out of context from other's posts)..."
Restricted to five posts in a 24-hour period...I..."make lemonade". ;)

(Hat-tip to IG) :)

1) Look back at Hazelnut's post. He has "parsed" my comment exactly right: it may appear to be "out of context", but HN hasn't changed my meaning what-so-ever. This is in general accord with a practice that is used at this country's largest Internet forum, of which I am also a member.

(Alternatively, they also use << snip >>—also seen here at this forum).

If you try to read your copy of my last reply, it has lost whatever context it ever had. :(

2) HN is also correct to "parse" Cow Islander's reply to leave out the fact of "loud noise in Formula boats", as he doesn't choose to address that fact in his reply: that is also "parsing", but retains context without introducing extraneous thought.

3) If you look at winni83's quote, below, it can't survive any parsing, so that quote is untouched.

"...What threat do you encounter a mile away that would require you to use your signaling device? A mile is a long way off in any boating situation and allows for a lot of course changes prior to having to give way to your boat, sail or otherwise..."
1) Boats do wander all over, it's true. Watch any Jet-Ski for a few seconds! :eek2: But that's what it feels like to have a real freedom. (Something we can't do on NH's byways).

2) It's also true that a mile is a long way, but that's the kind of defensive driving that should be practiced when driving on the road. Only one other member here has ever mentioned it. :(

It occurs to me every so often, that I've never resorted to the "panic-braking" ABS feature in my 16-year-old vehicle!

3) Seeing that there are still "the usual suspects" using "civil disobedience" on Lake Winnipesaukee to express their "thrill-inclinations", the one-mile distance can be closed in a fraction of one minute. :eek:

Even less, depending on my own course and speed. :(

"...I suspect 70 plus with nothing better to do..."
While I'd characterize this comment as Agist (http://mw2.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agist), I also suspect that 70-year-olds would include the "Greatest Generation"—and others with the time to express concern for grandchildren. (Including the children who are not their own grandchildren).

"...SBONH was formed to promote safety and boater education on NH's bodies of water including Lake Winnipesaukee..."
Within SBONH's mission-statement appears a demanded change in Winnipesaukee's present law that noisy exhaust "cut-outs" be restored to loud engines on Lake Winnipesaukee. :(

What this has to do with boating safety is anyone's guess. :rolleye2:

This "flip-side of safety" seems to be counter-intuitive. :eek2:

(Not surprisingly). :rolleye1:

I seriously question the wisdom of using such a device. Were such a device used to intentionally reflect sunlight back into the eyes of the operator of a boat and thereby limit, hinder or otherwise interfere with his or her vision, it would seem to me that such action would constitute an “unsafe” boating practice even if it did not run afoul of civil or criminal law [e. g. intentionally blinding the driver of an on coming vehicle with high beams], especially if there were ample evidence of bragging about using such a device to ward off perceived “threats”

So far, no complaints; in justification, it is likely that the affected helmsmen see the correctness of "being corrected". ;) The President of the SBONH's predecessor (and Littlefield and LaPointe), were threats for miles and miles and miles.

The PED device can be as small as you want to make it—credit card size or postage stamp size. :) Just how big do you think a P.E.D. needs to be? :eek2:

"...I would have thought the reflection off the tinfoil hat would have been enough to ward off anything..."
IMHO, "The Rules" of this guy (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2314) shouldn't appear at this forum. :(

[ishoot308]

Sorry APS, couldn't get through reading your post before a migraine set in...

Dan

[winni83]

Looks like the magnum size to me. See below. No complaints yet is not much of a justification. Perhaps you have been lucky. Some might not be tolerant of such acts.


Boy, does it ever. :rolleye1:

What you need is a DIY "Powerboat Excluder" for sunny days. :look:

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i117/chipmunkwhisperer/NortechExcluderDevice.jpg

The prototype modeled here has three disposable CDs attached to an old hat. However, just one CD in front is best, as it is really a powerful mirror used to reflect the sun.

While you could simply carry a CD on board, this model can be "aimed" by just moving your head: meanwhile, control of your boat can be maintained with both hands. The results are highly gratifying, and kayakers have commented favorably about it.

Some "previously-flashed" locals give my boat a wide berth; on the other hand, skippers who fail to notice the bright flash from my boat get my instant concern and attention.

Bass boats and Jet-Skis never seem to miss it—perhaps because they are always focused forward.

It's highly effective. Try one—you'll like it! :)


I was just reading that injuries from a jet drive can be severe. ("Ask an ER doctor". (http://www.boated.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=118220)) 'Guess it'd be deadly if you got a snootful.


I've seen the NHMPs shoo "littler" kids on swim rafts closer to shore: with the remarkable increase in lakefront rentals in my locale, it's a much more common sight this year.

I was just reading of an Internet post (http://tinyurl.com/5mxndn) where the Coast Guard fined a boater $250 reckless operation—for passing swimmers near a dive flag, ¼-mile off a beach—in the ocean!


Not as bad as the photo below: This little girl is riding on the swim platform! :eek:

Both ends of a boat should be of concern.

[VtSteve]

IMHO, "The Rules" of this guy (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2314) shouldn't appear at this forum. :(


http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2314

"Though Alinsky is rightfully understood to have been a leftist, his legacy is more methodological than ideological. He identified a set of very specific rules that ordinary citizens could follow, and tactics that ordinary citizens could employ, as a means of gaining public power. His motto was, "The most effective means are whatever will achieve the desired results.""


Not only do his rules appear here on the forum, I think we can identify him/them by name :laugh:

[Yankee]

APS - Again, this is borderline unreadable.

Nothing borderline about...I stopped attempting to translate his "Parsi" many years ago.

[ApS]

The quest began after 6-AM in easy breezes from the NW. Winds picked up to about 14-MPH shortly afterwards. Nice, but not the relaxing sail I prefer. 'Never-once used my PED going to Cow Island.

Very few boats were out at that hour: Two salmon fishermen in The Broads—including the "fisherman in the 'red boat'". :rolleye2:

As I approached the south end of the Barber Pole channel, an MP snuck up on me—turned on his lights and siren and took off—after making a 180° turn. (A Jet-Ski "chase", I think, though the Jet-Ski had given me plenty of room). It could have been a registration number that set things in motion. Once the MPs have a complainant giving a registration number, they have a "hook" to pull you over.

At that time, I was in the "wind shadow" of Cow Island and proceeded in accordance with the gentle puffs. I drifted into the small cove near a tiny island with a very shallow entrance. Sundecks were in use, and several islanders commented favorably as I passed by:

"You would make a great picture", one said.

Just before I got over to the location of the purported Boston Whaler, I was passed at headway speed by a sight-seeing boat named "Big Sandy II". (New to me). They slowed even further to point out the tiny cove behind the tiny island. One lady passenger then waved to me: I knew by waving back, there would be many "waves" that would then "need-returning".

"Big Sandy II" had a diesel odor.

It docked on the Tuftonboro side and let off about 30 people. Those passengers may have something to do with the YMCA camp on Sandy Island, nearby. I recognized a "work-boat" from YMCA/Sandy Island that had preceeded them to the same dock.

After a little backtracking, a little before 8-AM—I'm still looking for a Boston Whaler. Even at that hour, there was some activity at the waterfronts along Cow Island. Lots of hammers swinging around the cottages there, this weekend. Two residents were moving underwater rocks around. Some were thrown into deeper water. (Something I don't understand :confused: ).

But I still ended-up not seeing any Boston Whaler boat. :(

Where I thought the Boston Whaler (and a camera) should be, was a dysfunctional scene: two dogs—one brown, one black—were running back and forth across the properties of other residents. Their owners were yelling and also chasing back and forth through five or more lots at any one time. :laugh:

("No, Toby doesn't bite"... :rolleye2:)

At the waterfront, The Beatles were being playing loudly at 8-AM.

I'm not going to complain—ever again—about my own July neighboring rental-people. I'd already nick-named them, "The Clampetts".

A Bald Eagle was sighted high overhead—soaring in great circles—drifting leisurely to the southeast. He was "checking out" the center of Tuftonboro Neck.

Because I was in no rush, the round trip took six hours. :eek2: The return trip was dicey, because "Chaos reigns" after 11-AM on weekends.

Even using the PED (as best I could in the extreme chop), I couldn't persuade even half of the oncoming boats to give me enough room to clear the markers. One stood out: a Grady-White with a Mercury. The "driver" waved to me, while passing at about 60'. His wake was considerable, and I had to reduce sail to keep from submarining under it.

For my small vessel at 12:30-PM, the lake was very rough with wind and wakes cross-colliding. The wind had increased markedly, and wakes were large and indeterminate. That gave me an intense workout I'd like to forget. I managed to wave to a few considerate boaters—most of them in outboards.

My eyes got to squeaking after being out on the lake for six hours-straight. :eek2: I shouldn't complain: it was a weekend, but it was sunny. :)

The crux of the problem is that the channel has an inside curve: that's where boat-wakes are steep, which are the worst you can encounter.

Residents are densely situated, and getting hammered by nearly every mid-sized boat that goes by. (Even at reasonable speeds.)

As I turned to leave the area,—wouldn't you know it—a tuber passed me running straight-through the middle of the channel.

He gave me about 75'—and a wave! :mad:

[hazelnut]

I got over there about 8-AM, looking for a Boston Whaler.

Where I thought the Boston Whaler and the camera should be, was a dysfunctional scene: Dogs—and their owners yelling, and chasing back and forth through five or more lots at any one time! ("No, Toby doesn't bite"... :rolleye2:)

The Beatles being playing loudly at 8-AM. :rolleye1:

I'm not going to complain—ever again—about my July neighboring rental-people, who I'd nick-named, "The Clampetts")

My eyes are squeaking after being out on the lake for six hours-straight. I'll finish this message after I've gotten some shuteye.

For a small vessel at 12:30-PM, the lake was very rough with wind and wakes cross-colliding, giving me a workout I'd like to forget.

Basically, the problem is the channel has an inside curve: that's where boat-wakes are worst. They're getting hammered by 40'-plus boats traveling even at reasonable speeds.

Sure enough, there was a tuber running up the channel. He gave me about 75'—and a wave! :mad:

In the south end of the channel, an MP snuck up on me—turned on his lights and siren and took off, after making a 180° turn. (Jet-Ski "chase", I think).

More later...


Wrong house? We don't have a dog. Not a Beatles fan either. Perhaps your "eyes (were) squeaking" earlier than you though. :laugh:

[ApS]

Dan,

You may have been using hyperbole, but sorry about the migraine headache anyway.

With time, you will outgrow migraine headaches; however, if "aura" accompanies your migraine, "aura" will stay with you the rest of your natural life. :(

Looks like the magnum size to me. See below. No complaints yet is not much of a justification. Perhaps you have been lucky. Some might not be tolerant of such acts.

I couldn't locate that photo earlier, so thank you for finding that message. If you saw the ApS message that followed, two NHMP officers thought a PED was a good answer to the problem!

In order to speak with them, I'd used a PED to summon them over!

The current PEDs I use are much smaller, and consist of only a fraction of one CD. One was shown briefly at ForumFest-2010.

The "Magnum" was too fragile from day one. It was very effective at horsefly-swatting, but it promptly became only a "one-use item" for me. :(

I've given away a few "Mk. IIs" to kayakers, who never knew that some powerboaters, "couldn't see them on the lake". :(

I cannot believe that the country's largest internet forum allows you to snip and edit posts, creating vertigo like effects. Are you also on a 5 post per day limit there?

"If you cannot believe it, you will fail."
—Yoda
(I read that somewhere). ;)

There, the number of posts at any time are unlimited for all. The site is "hugh" in size.

For now, I'll leave off the quotes which you assert "creates vertigo"; still, expect to see their standard abbreviations here—FWIW, IIRC, IOW, and OP.

Maybe we should paint lines on the lake and increase the SL to 65MPH - just like "driving on the road"?That's an extreme view I would hardly subscribe to. You write as though you have experienced ABS' "panic braking". I suggest looking as far ahead as possible, for all drivers.

Looking as "far ahead as possible" is valuable advice for any kind of transportation—but useless if you "text" while driving your car, and not so helpful if you're operating GPS or have a cellphone in hand.

But looking far ahead is a frequent failure of Winnipesaukee "drivers". Although 97% of us captains are "above-average", you can bump that to one-hundred percent, if your boat has "graphics", and all your compatriots agree with you on everything.

At 45MPH, that one mile distance would certainly be well over one minute. If you were travelling in the exact opposite direction at 15MPH, then it would be exactly one minute.

Before you snip / , * cut, # and butcher \ / some of | what I've http://www.anchoredbygrace.com/smileys/loki8.gif posted • to spin « it to your ¢ liking ® please take ¶ a ¬ minute² (literally) and watch the full 60 seconds gø by.™

Like many others before you, you've tried to put words in my mouth: the usual suspects commit civil-disobedience every weekend—ignoring the daytime speed limit by doubling it—if they are able.

One admitted here (yesterday) that a USCG certificate was enough in credentials to display their own personal civil-disobedience obligations to their many admirers.

After you're done, think about a few things. First, if you were piloting your Thrill seeking vessel on the lake, would one minute and thirty-three seconds be enough time for you to turn your wheel? The four fatal Winnipesaukee collisions that made headlines had many miles (and minutes) in which to "turn their wheels". I wish "turning a wheel" could make it that simple, but I can't account for the anarchy that was out there—and which still remains in pockets.

My thrill-machine is a sailboat, and don't have "a wheel" to turn. It only takes seconds to turn my boat within its own length; however, that is an insufficient reaction to save my passengers, crew, and me. :(

Safety is the first of the ABCs of being a boat captain. :cool:

You can't be a responsible captain for passengers and crew, if you depend on the "30-somethings 'high self-esteem'" and the "group-congratulatory behavior" that inevitably leads to lawbreaking.

SBONH' newest switchable-exhaust initiative adds nothing for a boat captain who is serious about safety.

Lastly, how many times have the 'usual suspects' or any boater on the lake been involved in an accident that the SL would have prevented? Quote this: NONE

SIKSUKR will tell you the true story of a "cigar boat" that flew off the lake at night. Three died instantly when they entered a Gilford cottage up-side down.

I recall that beheadings were reported among the three victims; however, that was a reply by another poster, so I can't quote that addendum for you with my usual assurance of accuracy.

Picture from foul weather day too, likely from another location.:(

The attachment below shows the results of a gargantuan wake I did not witness: you'll have to believe me that it is the same dock and the same location.

APS - Again, this is borderline unreadable. Kind Regards.

:D But I can read you just fine. :)



Yr Hmbl Svnt,

ApS

[VtSteve]

"Big Sandy II" had a diesel odor.

It docked on the Tuftonboro side and let off about 30 people. Those passengers may have something to do with the YMCA camp on Sandy Island, nearby. I recognized a "work-boat" from YMCA/Sandy Island that had preceeded them to the same dock.


At the waterfront, The Beatles were being playing loudly at 8-AM.

I'm not going to complain—ever again—about my own July neighboring rental-people. I'd already nick-named them, "The Clampetts".


Even using the PED (as best I could in the extreme chop), I couldn't persuade even half of the oncoming boats to give me enough room to clear the markers. One stood out: a Grady-White with a Mercury. The "driver" waved to me, while passing at about 60'. His wake was considerable, and I had to reduce sail to keep from submarining under it.

For my small vessel at 12:30-PM, the lake was very rough with wind and wakes cross-colliding. The wind had increased markedly, and wakes were large and indeterminate. That gave me an intense workout I'd like to forget. I managed to wave to a few considerate boaters—most of them in outboards.

The crux of the problem is that the channel has an inside curve: that's where boat-wakes are steep, which are the worst you can encounter.

Residents are densely situated, and getting hammered by nearly every mid-sized boat that goes by. (Even at reasonable speeds.)

As I turned to leave the area,—wouldn't you know it—a tuber passed me running straight-through the middle of the channel.

He gave me about 75'—and a wave! :mad:

So. You witnessed numerous safe passage violations, but nothing too serious, just not a measured 150'. The waves in that area are pretty well-documented, and you see them first hand.

You seem to be inclined to make outboard boats sound friendlier than others. I don't like those big camp boats that smell bad either. You also did not navigate properly to find the Whaler, I thought the exact location was pretty well described :confused:

The "curve". I know just what you mean. As boats turn at certain speeds, particularly larger ones with deeper Vees or semi displacement hulls, the wakes take on the high shape of a large white cap. If you happen to be inside this curve, the wakes approaching you seem to be double the size and height. This makes things even harder when you are out in windy conditions, probably not suitable for small craft. But your skills enabled you to make the journey, even while attempting to blind oncoming mariners with your PED. Did they actually cut off your access to clear the markers?

Question: How many boats slowed down to musher speed so their wakes became larger?

[SIKSUKR]

Well I spent an hour from about 12 or 12:30 on Saturday in the BP zone just to watch the mayhem. Guess what? I saw just the opposite. 5-6 times I watched as numerous boats approached each other and every time all parties came to headway speed when appropriate. Everything looked very orderly to me.
Found HN's camp and lingered out front for a minute but no boats were present so I moved on. Wanted to introduce myself HN, maybe next time.

[Pineedles]

Well I spent an hour from12 to 12:30 on Saturday in the BP zone just to watch the mayhem.Guess what?I saw just the opposite.5-6 times I watched as numerous boats approached each other and every time all parties came to headway speed when appropriate.Everything looked very orderly to me.
Found HN's camp and lingered out front for a minute but no boats were present so I moved on.Wanted to introduce myself HN,maybe next time.

Thank you Bill. Your opinion carries alot of weight around these parts. This is what we need, people expressing their direct observations and opinions about a proposed NWZ, as its passage will affect everyone.

[ApS]

You didn't read my last travelogue on the Barber's Pole NWZ? :confused:

Well I spent an hour from about 12 or 12:30 on Saturday in the BP zone just to watch the mayhem.Guess what?I saw just the opposite.5-6 times I watched as numerous boats approached each other and every time all parties came to headway speed when appropriate.Everything looked very orderly to me.
Found HN's camp and lingered out front for a minute but no boats were present so I moved on.Wanted to introduce myself HN,maybe next time.
We're describing the same place, but we're describing different times.

The four hours I spent between 8-AM to 10-AM appeared differently from the one hour you spent between 12 to 12:30. ;)

If you had called-out "Toby", I expect your PWC would've had doggie company very shortly. You didn't see a Boston Whaler—I'd put money on that! If you didn't hear The Beatles being played loudly, there wasn't a 27' Chapparal there to play it. ;)

The "Big Sandy II" wasn't the only boat at headway speed—most were southbound, anyway. It wasn't the "big camp boat" passengers that were smelly. I was only referring to the diesel engine powering it. ;)

One huge Fountain passed through at legal speed—not that anybody could think-of-any-thing-else-at-the-time. :rolleye1: His wake was not outrageous, but the wakes of heavy-laden boats were. I had to "time" my approach to the Islands' shallows, so as not to beat the bottom repeatedly when a wake would be striking the shoreline.

Among other small boats along that stretch, one resident has six wind-surfers raised several feet above high-water. How do they manage to go sailing at all? :confused: Do they need a tow to secure waters?

How could they not want a NWZ in front of their launch point? :confused:

The BP residents throwing rocks from their docking spaces—I now realize—were "manually dredging" the shallows under their boats. This was keep their boats from striking-bottom, after wakes had roughed-up their boats. :(

Leaving, I had this feeling I should put on my PFD as I entered the waters south of Barber's Pole. :rolleye2:

On my southbound return trip, I realize that some boaters just don't care. :(

I have to "hide" on the wrong side of markers, because too many have this need to "clip" the markers. Not giving 150-feet of safe passage to small boats that wouldn't damage their gelcoat is just wrong. :(

I made a point to wave at considerate boaters, even as my boat had contact with the surface at only one or two places along its keel at any one moment. :eek:

I support the NWZ at Barber's Pole, even as my own needs for wake protection can never be provided: a breakwater wasn't granted a permit—and neither would a NWZ ever happen here.

I enjoy watching folks playing on the waters: it's a shame that those with oversized boats can't go tubing in The Broads—a scant ½-mile away. They disrupt enjoyments of everyone else in front of my location—tossing our boats and shallows into a roiled mayhem. The anarchy of wake damage occurs within their eyesight, though they choose not to see it first-hand, behind them.

A friend from Camp Wyanoke days visited me on Sunday: we watched as the wakes hammered in. Imagine getting wet 10-feet above the lake! :eek2:

Though he lives in sight across our shared harbor, he was impressed by the forces that were unleashed along my shoreline.

From Port Wedeln he can clearly see boats rafting in Johnson's Cove. He is not affected by the oversized boats that "commute" to Johnson's Cove on weekends. His location is less "waked", as he is on the "outside" of wakes—our side gets hammered, as we're on "the inside".

It is no different at Barber's Pole.

We both remarked that a 22' outboard "lobster-boat style" boat that is manufactured locally, leaves a very modest wake—indeed. It appears to be the perfect Lake Winnipesaukee boat for all reasons—barring the weather extremes that can sink a Cobalt. ('Though maybe it was actually a better boat in that circumstance—even given its smaller size.)

Even boats of "only" 24-feet can throw a wake that can overturn the unsuspecting jon-boat or canoe. We can suspect an oversized boat damaged a seaplane last week. The two recorded 2010 hypothermia fatalities could have oversized boats to blame. :(

'Sorry this reply is late, by a day: I managed seven posts on Sunday—for whatever reason that was permitted. All day long on Monday, I never lost the error-message that said "You have exceeded five posts in a 24-hour period". :( I'm not a "numbers person" at all. I don't understand the algorithm that controls my replies intermittantly—then blocks them. :confused:

At bottom, I support the NWZ at Barber's Pole. Any reasonable person would, as well. Residents who fund this state through property taxes should have this slightest of courtesies extended.

I viewed the clatter, barking, and banging at Cow Island as a peculiar form of noise-pollution, but any headline that could follow misadventure, is worth two minutes of delay when transiting the narrows at Barber's Pole.

IMHO.

[ApS]

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2314

"Though Alinsky is rightfully understood to have been a leftist, his legacy is more methodological than ideological. He identified a set of very specific rules that ordinary citizens could follow, and tactics that ordinary citizens could employ, as a means of gaining public power. His motto was, "The most effective means are whatever will achieve the desired results.""

Not only do his rules appear here on the forum, I think we can identify him/them by name :laugh:
1) This last statement (in red) needs clarifying.

It would appear to be a blanket remark that affects more than one member as to their veracity. As for myself, you have ten years of ApS posts in which to locate a statement that expresses a deliberate untruth.

2) "Whatever will achieve the desired results" appeared very early in the speed limit discussions. Perhaps you missed just one of those posts (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=24992&postcount=96).

Most citizens don't know how significantly this un-American agenda has already affected their future well-being. The same phrase accounts significantly for the national dithering apparent in recent headlines. :(

[VtSteve]

1)

"His motto was, "The most effective means are whatever will achieve the desired results."

Most citizens don't know how significantly this un-American agenda has already affected their future well-being. The same phrase accounts significantly for the national dithering apparent in recent headlines. :(

I'm well aware of how unsavory and distasteful that line is. I don't think you'd have to look far to find a post of my own that referenced that sort of behavior. It's also been the subject of some threads people found too nasty for their taste. In fact, I've had some people PM me and say just that.

"Doesn't matter if we lied, WE WON".

I freely admit, that the tactics "means", disturb me much more than the results, whether I agree with them or not. Perhaps I get a little too hot under the collar sometimes, and I think some have failed to see that I was upset over the tactics, not necessarily the issue at hand. I believe I even started a thread which said just that, but somehow cannot find anymore :confused:

In addition, one thing that seems to confuse the heck out of people nowadays, I don't discriminate when calling out against someone's methods. If I agree with someone's "agenda", but deplore their methods, I will still find deceitful tactics to be just that, unsavory and unwelcome. I guess that's just me though.

[VitaBene]

1) This last statement (in red) needs clarifying.

It would appear to be a blanket remark that affects more than one member as to their veracity. As for myself, you have ten years of ApS posts in which to locate a statement that expresses a deliberate untruth.

2) "Whatever will achieve the desired results" appeared very early in the speed limit discussions. Perhaps you missed just one of those posts (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=24992&postcount=96).

Most citizens don't know how significantly this un-American agenda has already affected their future well-being. The same phrase accounts significantly for the national dithering apparent in recent headlines. :(

You know I really don't try to be be confrontational with you, but I still have no clue what you are talking about. And I am sure I am not alone.

I do find it humorous that some of the biggest performance boat haters on this forum seem to spend a lot of time on performance boat forums. Thank you because without you posting about them here I would never have known about them!

[MAXUM]

Well APS and SOTD it's pretty obvious what your MO is - simply orchestrate a "crisis" take a few pieces of evidence completely out of context, if that's not possible fabricate whatever is necessary to make others believe the foolishness you're spewing. There is simply no supporting factual evidence thus provided that comes close to support the erroneous claims of yours that the BP is an out of control area where people's lives are at risk and boats are flying through there at 70 MPH. I find it beyond comical that these claims are even taken seriously but alas the fictional depiction of utter chaos and throw a little more dramatics on as icing on the cake make the story is as bleak as possible seems to work every time. Disingenuous, shameful, deceitful, deceptive just a few words that come to mind. Why not just be honest about your intentions and spit out what it is you really want, it's OK no need to be embarrassed we already know.

You're as transparent as a piece of glass and we all see right through you... but no worries your postings are useful for one thing - comic relief.

[TiltonBB]

You didn't read my last travelogue on the Barber's Pole NWZ? :confused:


We're describing the same place, but we're describing different times.

The four hours I spent between 8-AM to 10-AM appeared differently from the one hour you spent between 12 to 12:30. ;)

How could they not want a NWZ in front of their launch point? :confused:

The BP residents throwing rocks from their docking spaces—I now realize—were "manually dredging" the shallows under their boats. This was keep their boats from striking-bottom, after wakes had roughed-up their boats. :(

Leaving, I had this feeling I should put on my PFD as I entered the waters south of Barber's Pole. :rolleye2:

On my southbound return trip, I realize that some boaters just don't care. :(

I support the NWZ at Barber's Pole, even as my own needs for wake protection can never be provided: a breakwater wasn't granted a permit—and neither would a NWZ ever happen here.

I enjoy watching folks playing on the waters: it's a shame that those with oversized boats can't go tubing in The Broads—a scant ½-mile away. They disrupt enjoyments of everyone else in front of my location—tossing our boats and shallows into a roiled mayhem. The anarchy of wake damage occurs within their eyesight, though they choose not to see it first-hand, behind them.

A friend from Camp Wyanoke days visited me on Sunday: we watched as the wakes hammered in. Imagine getting wet 10-feet above the lake! :eek2:

Though he lives in sight across our shared harbor, he was impressed by the forces that were unleashed along my shoreline.

From Port Wedeln he can clearly see boats rafting in Johnson's Cove. He is not affected by the oversized boats that "commute" to Johnson's Cove on weekends. His location is less "waked", as he is on the "outside" of wakes—our side gets hammered, as we're on "the inside".

It is no different at Barber's Pole.

We both remarked that a 22' outboard "lobster-boat style" boat that is manufactured locally, leaves a very modest wake—indeed. It appears to be the perfect Lake Winnipesaukee boat for all reasons—barring the weather extremes that can sink a Cobalt. ('Though maybe it was actually a better boat in that circumstance—even given its smaller size.)

Even boats of "only" 24-feet can throw a wake that can overturn the unsuspecting jon-boat or canoe. We can suspect an oversized boat damaged a seaplane last week. The two recorded 2010 hypothermia fatalities could have oversized boats to blame. :(

'Sorry this reply is late, by a day: I managed seven posts on Sunday—for whatever reason that was permitted. All day long on Monday, I never lost the error-message that said "You have exceeded five posts in a 24-hour period". :( I'm not a "numbers person" at all. I don't understand the algorithm that controls my replies intermittantly—then blocks them. :confused:

At bottom, I support the NWZ at Barber's Pole. Any reasonable person would, as well. Residents who fund this state through property taxes should have this slightest of courtesies extended.

I viewed the clatter, barking, and banging at Cow Island as a peculiar form of noise-pollution, but any headline that could follow misadventure, is worth two minutes of delay when transiting the narrows at Barber's Pole.

IMHO.

You keep referring to "oversize boats". How do you define an oversize boat? What makes your determination correct? Could someone with a different perspective define a 15 foot Whaler or a kayak as an undersized boat? What would make them correct?

If you are trying to establish that a certain sized wake establishes the criteria for a no wake zone would you expect that anytime and any place that the same size wake reaches the shore on Winnipesaukee it should be a no wake zone in that area too? Do you think that people that have property on more open parts of the lake don't see any boat wakes hit the shoreline in front of their house?

I have been on the lake for over 40 years and bought a home on the lake many years ago in an area that has substantial waves, especially on the weekends. I own two other pieces of property on the lake, one of which is in a no wake zone.

I accept what is here and the changes that have occurred and realize that if I don't like it, I can move on. I would suggest that anyone else who owns property on the lake has the same option. If you want the small lake atmosphere, go to a small lake.

[ApS]

(Previously quoted)
I seriously question the wisdom of using such a device.

1) The device is relatively small: When it's sunny, we'll get blinding flashes off of the windshields of moored bowriders. It's even worse when wakes from oversized boats are present to rock them.

2) Tuesday, I had to use the PED on a floatplane: He'd taken off in the normal fashion, but he then turned into the wind and became a threat to my 20' mast. You'd have to be a dunce NOT to communicate in this manner: Floatplanes see nothing on the lake after "rotation". A brief flash was all that I can muster. With today's proliferating noise pollution, a whistle is hardly useful today—anywhere.

Pilots see ground flashes every minute—especially off ponds and skylights.

This is not a lazer.

You know I really don't try to be be confrontational with you, but I still have no clue what you are talking about. And I am sure I am not alone.
After reading VtSteve's so-called answer, I think the topic is above the heads of most. It is also difficult to talk "around" the subject of Sedition on this forum: If you haven't seen and understood this chalkboard's message, there's nothing to talk about, anyway: http://api.ning.com/files/zaKh6yndI5N0mYUA6R6QwNhqhulTFWsUM9ic6awMUwwit4Jc6j Sqlh9RyfoS4I6MPXxOO-Z*ycFyv89esCYd55YjMqe6xqP*/ph2008033100939.jpg

The chalkboarder's technique is important, however, and you'll find that very technique here—and at the SOS forum. With only 45,000 members, they still attempt to overwhelm a naive public: If bluster, vote-fraud and obfuscation don't work, they instead use intimidation.

It's the national problem of bullying—brought to the issues found within our sorely-abused inland waters. I think the few of us opposed to oversized boats here at this forum, suffer only a little—at the constant criticism and the tactics of shadiness: but some have suffered unduly.

Just ask winni.com member, LRSLA.

I do find it humorous that some of the biggest performance boat haters on this forum seem to spend a lot of time on performance boat forums. Thank you because without you posting about them here I would never have known about them!
You may find that bluster and threats are your kind of answers, but there is much to dislike about the arrogance found amply among SOS boaters.

Be sure to check on their choice of firearms aboard and their propensity for liquor. Search "Tanqueray" for a thread on drinking aboard, and some light may glow near the VitaBene horizon.

I've seen only one SOS member who agreed with SOTD, TB, BI, ApS and elchase. His was the most introspective response there in a decade. He was full of empathy for the boaters who weren't elite and smug, "30-somethings".

Among the usual wildly self-congratulatory SOS membership—nobody came forward to counter his argument. His arguments against night travel at high speeds was particularly convincing.

SOS is the only forum of whom I'm aware, has called Don a Nazi in print.

You keep referring to "oversize boats". How do you define an oversize boat? What makes your determination correct? Could someone with a different perspective define a 15 foot Whaler or a kayak as an undersized boat? What would make them correct?

If you are trying to establish that a certain sized wake establishes the criteria for a no wake zone would you expect that anytime and any place that the same size wake reaches the shore on Winnipesaukee it should be a no wake zone in that area too? Do you think that people that have property on more open parts of the lake don't see any boat wakes hit the shoreline in front of their house?

I have been on the lake for over 40 years and bought a home on the lake many years ago in an area that has substantial waves, especially on the weekends. I own two other pieces of property on the lake, one of which is in a no wake zone.

I accept what is here and the changes that have occurred and realize that if I don't like it, I can move on. I would suggest that anyone else who owns property on the lake has the same option. If you want the small lake atmosphere, go to a small lake.

1) We put actual "sweat-equity" into clearing our lot for our cottage.

We have "skin" in this game.

Since this has been the family's cottage for over a half-century, perhaps you can understand why I prefer to restore some sanity to this lake. You will find a "small lake atmosphere" in every Winnipesaukee cove, bay and harbor. That's why the issues exist in the first place.

If you'd lived in those places, you'd see oversized boats enter coves from open water—only to throw their oversized boat into wide-open throttle. :confused: The sound is similar to a truck engine about to throw a rod—if the sound is not overwhelmed by inadequate muffling.

2) When I had the feeling that I was overseeing Chaos and Anarchy on Lake Winnipesaukee, I wrote a letter to a local editor. It appeared in print three days before Littlefield withdrew his 4½-ton Baja from the eyes of NHMP investigators.

Littlefield''s response to a retiree's personal disaster, crushed to death while a passenger in a lesser boat—right in the middle of Lake Winnipesaukee—is no different than what is seen (if not urged) at SOS.

SOS is always saddened by the "accidental deaths" of its many members, but always the first in line to defend their frequent depredations on lesser boats.

"They were fishing :fire: in the channel!"

When referring to oversized boats, I'd put the following discussion at the top of my answer. You don't need anything greater than what was widely recommended here (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?p=69992http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?p=69992), last year.

Recently, a much larger Cobalt sank in rough Winnipesaukee waters. There are times when intentionally embarking on Winnipesaukee's rough waters should be reconsidered.

Weather is "big" with me.

The 22' Eastern is plenty; also, even the largest of pontoon boats don't affect me or my shoreline with their wakes. You have to sit and observe in coves, bays and harbors to witness this.

Each passage of an oversized boat at BP affects both sides of BP-residents' homes, boats, shorelines and docks: that passage may even be done multiple times each day. Even some smaller boats cannot be excluded from the criticism of their wake-making effects there.

Look deeply within yourself: It's not the residents' fault that this NWZ has come about.

Conditions at Barber's Pole are worse than any of Winnipesaukee's other coves, bays, and harbors.

IMHO.

[VitaBene]

You may find that bluster and threats are your kind of answers, but there is much to dislike about the arrogance found amply among SOS boaters.

Be sure to check on their choice of firearms aboard and their propensity for liquor. Search "Tanqueray" for a thread on drinking aboard, and some light may glow near the VitaBene horizon.

I've seen only one SOS member who agreed with SOTD, TB, BI, ApS and elchase. His was the most introspective response there in a decade. He was full of empathy for the boaters who weren't elite and smug, "30-somethings".

Among the usual wildly self-congratulatory SOS membership—nobody came forward to counter his argument. His arguments against night travel at high speeds was particularly convincing.

SOS is the only forum of whom I'm aware, has called Don a Nazi in print.


IMHO.

APS are you saying that I am threatening you in any way? if so you may need to seek professional help.

I don't even know what an SOS forum is, when I googled it the 10 top hits weren't about boats.

Regarding guns on boats: while I have a license to carry in MA and NH, I don't think I ever have on my boat. Now if I were offshore in certain foreign waters, I would do so.

Regarding drinking alcohol on my boat, It happens just about every time we are on the water. It is perfectly legal and safe. I should not even have to add this disclaimer but knowing how APS Parsi works, the operator of my vessel is never under the influence of alcohol.

You, sir, and your cronies need to stop trying to lump everyone who disagrees with your positions as thugs and outlaws. It is untrue, and frankly makes people see you for what you are.

[jrc]

Well APS, it's one thing to play around with flashing boaters in a state controlled lake.

But stating in a public forum that you intentionally flashed a mirror in a pilots eyes, during take-off and not for emergency reasons, might rise to a new level.

Maybe some of the pilots on this board can answer. Maybe I'll send an email to the FAA.

[Kracken]

APS,

In your opinion, are the waves in the Barber’s Pole area bigger/more damaging than those on the Broads side of Rattlesnake?

Last weekend they were certainly not but as somebody who spends more time in that area I would like to know your opinion.

[gtagrip]

(Previously quoted)


1) The device is relatively small: When it's sunny, we'll get blinding flashes off of the windshields of moored bowriders. It's even worse when wakes from oversized boats are present to rock them.

2) Tuesday, I had to use the PED on a floatplane: He'd taken off in the normal fashion, but he then turned into the wind and became a threat to my 20' mast. You'd have to be a dunce NOT to communicate in this manner: Floatplanes see nothing on the lake after "rotation". A brief flash was all that I can muster. With today's proliferating noise pollution, a whistle is hardly useful today—anywhere.

Pilots see ground flashes every minute—especially off ponds and skylights.

This is not a lazer.


After reading VtSteve's so-called answer, I think the topic is above the heads of most. It is also difficult to talk "around" the subject of Sedition on this forum: If you haven't seen and understood this chalkboard's message, there's nothing to talk about, anyway: http://api.ning.com/files/zaKh6yndI5N0mYUA6R6QwNhqhulTFWsUM9ic6awMUwwit4Jc6j Sqlh9RyfoS4I6MPXxOO-Z*ycFyv89esCYd55YjMqe6xqP*/ph2008033100939.jpg

The chalkboarder's technique is important, however, and you'll find that very technique here—and at the SOS forum. With only 45,000 members, they still attempt to overwhelm a naive public: If bluster, vote-fraud and obfuscation don't work, they instead use intimidation.

It's the national problem of bullying—brought to the issues found within our sorely-abused inland waters. I think the few of us opposed to oversized boats here at this forum, suffer only a little—at the constant criticism and the tactics of shadiness: but some have suffered unduly.

Just ask winni.com member, LRSLA.


You may find that bluster and threats are your kind of answers, but there is much to dislike about the arrogance found amply among SOS boaters.

Be sure to check on their choice of firearms aboard and their propensity for liquor. Search "Tanqueray" for a thread on drinking aboard, and some light may glow near the VitaBene horizon.

I've seen only one SOS member who agreed with SOTD, TB, BI, ApS and elchase. His was the most introspective response there in a decade. He was full of empathy for the boaters who weren't elite and smug, "30-somethings".

Among the usual wildly self-congratulatory SOS membership—nobody came forward to counter his argument. His arguments against night travel at high speeds was particularly convincing.

SOS is the only forum of whom I'm aware, has called Don a Nazi in print.



1) We put actual "sweat-equity" into clearing our lot for our cottage.

We have "skin" in this game.

Since this has been the family's cottage for over a half-century, perhaps you can understand why I prefer to restore some sanity to this lake. You will find a "small lake atmosphere" in every Winnipesaukee cove, bay and harbor. That's why the issues exist in the first place.

If you'd lived in those places, you'd see oversized boats enter coves from open water—only to throw their oversized boat into wide-open throttle. :confused: The sound is similar to a truck engine about to throw a rod—if the sound is not overwhelmed by inadequate muffling.

2) When I had the feeling that I was overseeing Chaos and Anarchy on Lake Winnipesaukee, I wrote a letter to a local editor. It appeared in print three days before Littlefield withdrew his 4½-ton Baja from the eyes of NHMP investigators.

Littlefield''s response to a retiree's personal disaster, crushed to death while a passenger in a lesser boat—right in the middle of Lake Winnipesaukee—is no different than what is seen (if not urged) at SOS.

SOS is always saddened by the "accidental deaths" of its many members, but always the first in line to defend their frequent depredations on lesser boats.



When referring to oversized boats, I'd put the following discussion at the top of my answer. You don't need anything greater than what was widely recommended here (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?p=69992http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?p=69992), last year.

Recently, a much larger Cobalt sank in rough Winnipesaukee waters. There are times when intentionally embarking on Winnipesaukee's rough waters should be reconsidered.

Weather is "big" with me.

The 22' Eastern is plenty; also, even the largest of pontoon boats don't affect me or my shoreline with their wakes. You have to sit and observe in coves, bays and harbors to witness this.

Each passage of an oversized boat at BP affects both sides of BP-residents' homes, boats, shorelines and docks: that passage may even be done multiple times each day. Even some smaller boats cannot be excluded from the criticism of their wake-making effects there.

Look deeply within yourself: It's not the residents' fault that this NWZ has come about.

Conditions at Barber's Pole are worse than any of Winnipesaukee's other coves, bays, and harbors.

IMHO.

I think this would make for an interesting psychiatric study at some medical school! :emb:

[gtagrip]

APS,

In your opinion, are the waves in the Barber’s Pole area bigger/more damaging than those on the Broads side of Rattlesnake?

Last weekend they were certainly not but as somebody who spends more time in that area I would like to know your opinion.

Could supporters of the NWZ for the BP area please post some video as Hazelnut did to support their arguement rather than all rehtoric that keeps getting posted? :confused:

[gtagrip]

It's not going to happen.

There's no way to effectively record people's feelings or fear.

Although, I would imagine it would look something like this... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9-e-2Av4bs&feature=related) :laugh:

Ryan, are you sure this is not someone from Squirrel or Birch Island? I think I saw this sme person on their dock last Saturday around 1:30pm. :emb:

I posted what I posted as I know, we will never get a video from the likes of SOTD, TB, El, etc... to support their arguement. I was really hoping APS would shoot some nice video. My hopes are dashed.

[ApS]

Well, I see that some people have suddenly taken me off "Ignore". :laugh:

:confused: Where is OCDactive on this? Why the silence? :confused:

Kracken, the wind has just "come-up" :) so I'll have to use one of my few remaining posts to advise you that is a good question—but did you mean, waves or wakes? :confused:

The other topics of "FAA-intimidation" and "needing help-intimidation" will just have to wait until later—but hopefully, this evening will see time for replying.

[winni83]

I was the source of the quote by APS regarding the wisdom of using such a device (posts #166 and #171). The issue of whether one is temporarily blinded by the use of such a device will be looked at from the perspective of the eyes of the beholder and not the flasher. The significant difference between the PED and reflections off other boats or water surfaces is that the PED is being aimed at someone. In any given circumstance, APS has no idea what the effect will be since he cannot be at the sending and receiving end at the same time (or maybe he can – see below). Just one small example of the utter arrogance of this crowd. Were APS to use such a device towards my eyes, I would not hesitate for a second to report him. As an aside, the algorithm which apparently limits the number of posts APS can make within a given time period is commonly known as an APSED – an APS Exclusionary Device.

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. From the recent observations of APS about the alleged goings on at Cow Island, I am waiting for some proposals to further regulate barking dogs, music and other “cowboy behavior”, apart from existing laws and regulations. It just is not civilized, don’t you see, and such rowdy behavior unduly interferes with one’s tranquility.

[Turtle Boy]

Could supporters of the NWZ for the BP area please post some video as Hazelnut did to support their arguement rather than all rehtoric that keeps getting posted? :confused:

Why in god's name would the BP residents want or need to do so? Their petition for a NWZ has received approval. So now they would want approval from the GFBL crowd as well. Maybe SBONH could get involved and solicit input from around the country (and even China?) as to how they feel about a BP NWZ ("afterall, your channel could be next").

[VitaBene]

Why in god's name would the BP residents want or need to do so? Their petition for a NWZ has received approval. So now they would want approval from the GFBL crowd as well. Maybe SBONH could get involved and solicit input from around the country (and even China?) as to how they feel about a BP NWZ ("afterall, your channel could be next").

Hey, look who crawled out from under its shell...

Because the BP residents were not heard from as has been discussed and noted numerous times on this thread. A few families were heard from, not all of the BP residents nor anyone else that will be effected. That is not to say that a NWZ is not warranted, but let the process go through as it should. (Kind of like the SL study that was cut short).

[Turtle Boy]

Hey, look who crawled out from under its shell...

Because the BP residents were not heard from as has been discussed and noted numerous times on this thread. A few families were heard from, not all of the BP residents nor anyone else that will be effected. That is not to say that a NWZ is not warranted, but let the process go through as it should. (Kind of like the SL study that was cut short).

Huh, let's try to respond to your post, but in English...too much Tanqueray?:laugh: You know, you can use the edit feature. It does seem that I too put myself in danger of one of your "midnight missives" but the residents of the BP seem to have expressed their concerns quite eloquently. It would seem that there needs to be a rule that SBONH members/officers should not be allowed to correspond on Winni.com after cocktail hour.

[ApS]

APS,
In your opinion, are the waves in the Barber’s Pole area bigger/more damaging than those on the Broads side of Rattlesnake?
Last weekend they were certainly not but as somebody who spends more time in that area I would like to know your opinion.
I love Rattlesnake Island. :)

If I were to buy there, I'd want to be right on the "nose" of the storm; unfortunately, that NNE lot is washing into the lake, especially the Broads-side of that property. That lot has the double-advantage of the cleanest air on the lake, with no roiling of bottom sediments being drawn into a pipeline for water.

Sailing is tricky because of katabatic winds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katabatic_wind) that can swirl backwards at the shoreline, and can draw you in—against a boulder-strewn shoreline.

Wakes in The Broads are subject to self-cancelling against other wakes and wind-driven waves.

Waves are fierce, sometimes, producing water blown across two breakwaters at a time. Someday, the full length of Rattlesnake—Broads-side—will be lined with breakwaters. :eek2:

I'd support the lining—along both sides—of Barber's Pole, with breakwaters paid for by SBONH. It's so rewarding—to give BP the shirt off someone else's back—I feel so "progressive". :laugh:

If what you're really asking, is that faster is better, I'd have to go with breakwaters for BP. Unless you allow only pontoon boats through there, there are too many different hull shapes to support "faster".

If you've ever motored in a canal, you'd see that BP has the double-whammy of channel waters, which respond to boat displacement with a rise in a small highly-localized "tide"—and then gets struck with wakes that can damage: more boats simultaneously, equals a greater effect against the shoreline.

The dredging of individual boat slips would help boat owners, but shoreline beaches will still find toddlers subject to being knocked over. :(

[VitaBene]

It would seem that there needs to be a rule that SBONH members/officers should not be allowed to correspond on Winni.com after cocktail hour.

Maybe SBONH could get involved and solicit input from around the country (and even China?) as to how they feel about a BP NWZ ("afterall, your channel could be next")



TT, you can make the rules for your organizations as you see fit, but I can assure you that SBONH does not need suggestions regarding its mission or operation from you. If you want to join, that is a different story. Please visit the website and sign up- it's so easy even you can do it!

I have no need to edit my post from last evening, but I will let others read and decide for themselves. In case some are not aware of what TT stands for, I will spell it out: TT=Turtle Troll. Just like the rest of your ilk (ElChase and SOTD), you hide behind your keyboards snickering as you agitate and get threads closed while contributing virtually nothing to any other parts of this site.

BTW, never had gin in my life, Tangueray or otherwise. I am partial to big Napa Valley Cabernets though so if you have any suggestions please pass them on.

Have a good day:)

[ApS]

I don't even know what an SOS forum is, when I googled it the 10 top hits weren't about boats...You, sir, and your cronies need to stop trying to lump everyone who disagrees with your positions as thugs and outlaws. It is untrue, and frankly makes people see you for what you are.
If you failed to reach SOS after I provided the link to it earlier, I don't see how you can write a responsible disclaimer. You're saying that those who disagree are "not thugs and outlaws", but haven't spent the two minutes that could convince you otherwise. Perhaps the term "sociopath" is better applied—yes—there are sociopaths on our waters: read about it, there. :rolleye2:

APS are you saying that I am threatening you in any way? if so you may need to seek professional help.
My entire career has been immersed in threats: a colleague was murdered recently. :(

A lifetime of various life-threatening adventure—and misadventure—has unured me to intimidation and threats.

Others here are not so callous to the specter of on-line intimidation. :(

Some PMs have emerged to indicate "incipient" intimidation; :( others, like "We Won!" are suggestive of fantasy to this reader. :rolleye2:

On the other hand, buckling-up in the passenger seat of a race car—to train a stranger who wants to race his sportscar—is certainly the appropriate time to bring in "professional help" for me! :laugh:

Regarding drinking alcohol on my boat, It happens just about every time we are on the water. It is perfectly legal and safe. I should not even have to add this disclaimer but knowing how APS Parsi works, the operator of my vessel is never under the influence of alcohol.
It may be legal, but it is definitely not "safe".

No amount of alcohol is safe on the water: the first sip of alcohol clouds Judgment—and Judgment isn't helped by additional alcohol. :(

The actions of rough waters, wind, dehydration, exposure and sun—take a serious toll on a captain's physical resources—even without having alcohol in his system. :(

The on-board carry of an Intoxilyzer® is the only sure measure of a captain's reaction to alcohol's influence.

In other waters, authorities can board a vessel with very little "official cause": once aboard, a captain's own testimony can find himself arrested on the spot. :eek: Lake Winnipesaukee has a LFOD attitude to alcohol-use aboard a boat. Lt. Dunleavey once spoke of 40% having alcohol on board.

Given Barber's Pole's curved and narrow shoreline, the slower the passage of a "40% boat", is best for the residents of that area. It's a shame that the "60% boats" are punished by the others, but some sub-sets of our population can have that effect on our regulations.

[chipj29]

It may be legal, but it is definitely not "safe".

No amount of alcohol is safe on the water: the first sip of alcohol clouds Judgment—and Judgment isn't helped by additional alcohol. :(

The actions of rough waters, wind, dehydration, exposure and sun—take a serious toll on a captain's physical resources—even without having alcohol in his system. :(

The on-board carry of an Intoxilyzer® is the only sure measure of a captain's reaction to alcohol's influence.

In other waters, authorities can board a vessel with very little "official cause": once aboard, a captain's own testimony can find himself arrested on the spot. :eek: Lake Winnipesaukee has a LFOD attitude to alcohol-use aboard a boat. Lt. Dunleavey once spoke of 40% having alcohol on board.

Given Barber's Pole's curved and narrow shoreline, the slower the passage of a "40% boat", is best for the residents of that area. It's a shame that the "60% boats" are punished by the others, but some sub-sets of our population can have that effect on our regulations.

I have asked this of you before, with no response. So I will ask again.
What is so unsafe about having alcohol aboard a boat? He stated plainly that the operator of the vessel is never under the influence. So are you saying that it is unsafe for a responsible adult to have an alcoholic beverage onboard a boat?

[hazelnut]

Why in god's name would the BP residents want or need to do so? Their petition for a NWZ has received approval. So now they would want approval from the GFBL crowd as well. Maybe SBONH could get involved and solicit input from around the country (and even China?) as to how they feel about a BP NWZ ("afterall, your channel could be next").

Bzzzzzzzt wrong! The residents of the Barbers Pole have not had their say. I can not say this enough. Apparently you and a few others can not (or will not) recognize or understand that two families do not make up "the residents" of the Barbers Pole. If you would like to you could say, "two families and their friends have had their say." That would be acceptable to your argument.

This topic has gone horribly astray from the original post. Let's at least try to stay on topic with this. I was up this weekend and opted not to video. Not because there were any crazy incidents that I am trying to hide. Quite the contrary. It was so windy all weekend that I do not believe it would be fair to post videos of Saturday and Sunday because traffic was so light. If I posted videos that I took this weekend it would have shown very few boats and what few were out would have been seen obeying the laws just about 99% of the time. I saw little if any infractions. It was a holiday weekend but as I said the wind kept many captains on shore.

I saw a number of people go on the wrong side of the marker in the channel. I've never seen anyone hit a rock over there. The more I look at the channel the more I see the best solution being the removal of the few rocks in the channel and subsequently removing the marker. It'll probably never happen though.

I also saw what appeared to be a non-uniformed MP in an MP boat scoping out the channel for a while on Friday. I believe it was Friday. Anyway, could have been Barrett or someone. Hopefully he will render an opinion on this one. I'd be happy to go along with his recommendation, whatever it may be.

[sunset on the dock]

Bzzzzzzzt wrong!

I saw a number of people go on the wrong side of the marker in the channel. I've never seen anyone hit a rock over there. The more I look at the channel the more I see the best solution being the removal of the few rocks in the channel and subsequently removing the marker.

Now there's an idea. Remove some of the many rocks in the Barber's Pole, one of the better fishing spots on the whole lake, so you and your GFBL friends could tear through the area even less encumbered? REALITY CHECK:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[ApS]

Well I spent an hour from about 12 or 12:30 on Saturday in the BP zone just to watch the mayhem. Guess what? I saw just the opposite. 5-6 times I watched as numerous boats approached each other and every time all parties came to headway speed when appropriate. Everything looked very orderly to me.
Found HN's camp and lingered out front for a minute but no boats were present so I moved on. Wanted to introduce myself HN, maybe next time.
If you found HN's camp, then you also found the widest part of the Barber's Pole channel.

If you overlooked Squirrel Island, you overlooked the narrowest part of the Barber's Pole channel.

I have asked this of you before, with no response. So I will ask again.
What is so unsafe about having alcohol aboard a boat? He stated plainly that the operator of the vessel is never under the influence. So are you saying that it is unsafe for a responsible adult to have an alcoholic beverage onboard a boat?
When "responsible" and alcoholic" appear in the same sentence, antennae should go up. :eek: Hopefully, a boating future holds nothing alcoholic to imperil Barber's Pole lakeside residents. :eek2:

Houses on Eagle Island and Diamond Island would disagree—if only houses could vote. Having just left the thread on Annalee Dolls, I recall that Parker Island have homes that were likewise endangered with alcohol on board.

If you must ask if Boating and Alcohol are Unsafe—I don't want to be anywhere nearby—not that I can do anything about it: an empty bottle of Heiniken-Lite appeared on my beach this Labor Day weekend.

(The first bottle ever!) :eek:

Headlines still refer to the latest alcohol-based collision: somewhere out on the lake, an alcohol-imbiber is waiting to make boating headlines. :(

Apparently you and a few others can not (or will not) recognize or understand that two families do not make up "the residents" of the Barbers Pole.
Who was it, who first said, "This lake belongs to everybody"? :rolleye2:

I was up this weekend and opted not to video...I saw little if any infractions...It was a holiday weekend but as I said the wind kept many captains on shore.
The very purpose of videotaping is to show it to those concerned about the Barber's Pole "wake" circumstance—a holiday weekend would be ideal.

The wind was strong, but small sailboats did go forth—I elected to stay on the dock. From that location, there were boats to be seen everywhere. Even if blind, you could hear their wakes hammering the shoreline—and even feel the slamming against your feet!

That you saw "little if any infractions" isn't a good reason to stop videotaping: any infractions should be exposed, for a viewer to judge for himself.

Those boats came from somewhere: Not videotaping was an error.

[Turtle Boy]

This topic has gone horribly astray from the original post. Let's at least try to stay on topic with this. I was up this weekend and opted not to video. Not because there were any crazy incidents that I am trying to hide. Quite the contrary. It was so windy all weekend that I do not believe it would be fair to post videos of Saturday and Sunday because traffic was so light. If I posted videos that I took this weekend it would have shown very few boats and what few were out would have been seen obeying the laws just about 99% of the time. I saw little if any infractions. It was a holiday weekend but as I said the wind kept many captains on shore.

I saw a number of people go on the wrong side of the marker in the channel. I've never seen anyone hit a rock over there. The more I look at the channel the more I see the best solution being the removal of the few rocks in the channel and subsequently removing the marker. It'll probably never happen though.



You've got to be kidding! Now I've heard everything. While we're at it, let's remove those irritating Twin Islands in Moultonboro Bay. Maybe SBONH could get Jim Forsythe to sponsor it come November if elected. Also, while we're on the topic, that 90 degree ledge on the north side of Diamond Island...how much work would it be to blast it down to 45 degrees at the water line so any boat hitting it at high speed would be directed up and out rather than having an abrupt stop. That little cabin behind the ledge looks like a piece of junk...let's move it back and to the side. The whole project seems as easy or easier than your BP proposal.

Stay tuned next week when we discuss eliminating Devons Island at the Hole in the Wall...talk about another nuisance...and has anyone ever seen people in that one lone cottage there? It's for sure a single (selfish) family standing in the way of improved traffic flow on the lake.

[Dhuberty24]

[QUOTE=Acres per Second;139505]If you must ask if Boating and Alcohol are Unsafe—I don't want to be anywhere nearby—


That is all we have to do.

[gtagrip]

Now there's an idea. Remove some of the many rocks in the Barber's Pole, one of the better fishing spots on the whole lake, so you and your GFBL friends could tear through the area even less encumbered? REALITY CHECK:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Why would boats be tearing through the BP if the SL is soooo effective?:rolleye2:

[MAXUM]

Why would boats be tearing through the BP if the SL is soooo effective?:rolleye2:

Easy answer - people like SOTD are interested in pushing an agenda, it has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the SL. That's the reason why ridiculous comments like this are made even though they show blatantly that their ideas simply don't work BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION. It's all about power and control based on their idea of how things should be and of course what makes them "feel" good. Some are just so pathetic they can't even make a point without contradiction.

[sunset on the dock]

I saw a number of people go on the wrong side of the marker in the channel. I've never seen anyone hit a rock over there. The more I look at the channel the more I see the best solution being the removal of the few rocks in the channel and subsequently removing the marker. It'll probably never happen though.



OK, I'll give you this...the Sunset family was brought to tears from laughter. Move the rocks at the Barber's Pole so some of you guys would not need to throttle down? Talk about the tail wagging the dog!!:emb::emb::emb:

[chipj29]

OK, I'll give you this...the Sunset family was brought to tears from laughter. Move the rocks at the Barber's Pole so some of you guys would not need to throttle down? Talk about the tail wagging the dog!!:emb::emb::emb:

If it would increase safety at that particular location, what exactly is so funny about it? It would widen the zone, making it possible for 2 boats to pass on plane (oh the horror!). Why go on and off plane, creating massive waves in the process, when you don't have to?

[MAXUM]

Talk about the tail wagging the dog!!:emb::emb::emb:

Yeah let's talk about the tail wagging the dog. A small minority of people who push for a NWZ that affects everyone. Then when asked to quantify the reasons why the answers given are either embellishments beyond belief or just plain fictitious.

[NoBozo]

It's all about power and control based on their idea of how things should be and of course what makes them "feel" good. Some are just so pathetic they can't even make a point without contradiction.

The bold above is mine. The other night I typed up a response to a post and strongly suggested that POWER over others was the Real Issue....in the SL case and the NWZ.........and every other wacko law that "some" people ..come up with for the lake.

I deleted my post....then. Now I see I'm not alone in my thoughts. Thanks MAXUM. :look: NB

[Rose]

Not videotaping was an error.

Where's your videotape from your journey over there?

[Woodsy]

All I can say is WOW. I am sitting in Pat O'Brien's on Bourbon Street LA. This thread is more entertaining than my current surroundings. Seriously, the "best fishing spot on the lake" is more important than wakes, kayaking, and safety? Do you guys read your own posts at all?

Have a Hurricane or 2 for me!


Woodsy

[Seaplane Pilot]

Huh, let's try to respond to your post, but in English...too much Tanqueray?:laugh: You know, you can use the edit feature. It does seem that I too put myself in danger of one of your "midnight missives" but the residents of the BP seem to have expressed their concerns quite eloquently. It would seem that there needs to be a rule that SBONH members/officers should not be allowed to correspond on Winni.com after cocktail hour.

This is really pathetic and a very low blow. And I suppose none of you and your Winn-Fabs ilk ever touch a drop of alcohol? How many times a day do you people polish your halos? Your self-professed "stronghold" on the lake is about to change direction - swiftly and radically. Just stay tuned and you'll see what I mean. Until then, keep guessing.

[sunset on the dock]

This is really pathetic and a very low blow. And I suppose none of you and your Winn-Fabs ilk ever touch a drop of alcohol? How many times a day do you people polish your halos? Your self-professed "stronghold" on the lake is about to change direction - swiftly and radically. Just stay tuned and you'll see what I mean. Until then, keep guessing.

Somehow I find that hard to believe especially given the strong bipartisan support in both houses for the SL (hence so what if more Republicans get elected...this was shown to be a reasonably non-partisan issue...in fact the bill was put forth by a Republican). Polls showed most NH residents are in a favor of a SL, and the fact that people approached to sign petitions were well versed and aware of some of Winni's problems and signed in a 10:1 majority was important.
So...I wasn't "guessing" to begin with. Now if you'll excuse me I have a bit of work to do before cocktail hour begins.
You sound like a very angry person.

[Seaplane Pilot]

You sound like a very angry person.

Thank you for noticing. You get an A+ on your test.

SP

[ApS]

Not videotaping was an error.
Where's your videotape from your journey over there?
I'd made no promises.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

MARK YOUR CALENDARS !!!!

Today's Meredith News reports that there will be a new hearing on the Barber Pole NWZ on October 1, at 10:00 A.M. at the Tuftonboro Meeting House.

According to the article, the original petionners (you know who you are) failed to notify all the property owners and the public. As aresult, 39 people petioned the Dept. of Safety for a new hearing.

Let's all show up in force for this one. Should buses be chartered to bring in all the people who missed the original "hearing" ?

[Turtle Boy]

Having reviewed some of the documents relating to this NWZ I find it interesting that 3 or 4 "prominent" SBONH members are appellants. What does this say? In reading some of the letters sent to the DOS from the island people it's easy to see they are indeed the one's most affected. Clearly it is a bad situation. Then here comes the SBONH crowd challenging their assertions. And then the origin of SBONH last December with the mission to oppose the SL...well it seems rather transparent what their opposition to a NWZ is all about. I suspect their appearance in droves will make this clear to those who will be entrusted to make the proper ruling. There was a sense that the appearance of the GFBL crowd in Concord did more to help pass the SL than to defeat it. History does tend to repeat itself.

[KPW]

Tuftonboro is having a meeting tonight at 7:00 pm regarding the Barber pole nwz. Not sure where on the agenda it will fall.

[ApS]

there will be a new hearing on the Barber Pole NWZ on October 1, at 10:00 A.M. at the Tuftonboro Meeting House.
A waste of three hours... :( ...not including travel.

In the last five minutes, the BP attorney summed it up:

"We did everything right."

[Little Bear]

Tuftonboro is having a meeting tonight at 7:00 pm regarding the Barber pole nwz. Not sure where on the agenda it will fall.

Is this different than the hearing in Tuftonboro that was conducted by the Department of Safety earlier today? If so, I'd be interested in knowing what jurisdiction the Town has over this matter?

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Barber Pole NWZ hearing was held this morning at 10:00 AM at Tuftonboro Meeting Hall. Anyone out there who attended care to share their thoughts?

[hazelnut]

The hearing was held today. The hearing was limited to the 11 individuals that submitted requests for re-hearing. The state will now decide whether or not to allow a full re-hearing, which will make the original hearing null and void and essentially set the process back to square one. If the state decides a re-hearing is necessary we will be notified and we will pass along the information to all. If th state decides a re-hearing is not warranted then the process continues to the state level through the house, senate, etc.

The hearing was fairly well attended.

[KPW]

I thought it was included in the regular town agenda. My mistake.

[ApS]

The hearing was fairly well attended.
1) I'd "audited" a similar NWZ hearing—in the same building—about ten years ago: No one "in opposition" to the NWZ had appeared at the previous hearing. (Attended by about 30 people). In spite of that turnout, it failed then, but something equivalent is in place near Tuftonboro Neck "Narrows"—today. :confused:

2) At the earlier hearing at the same location, I'd noticed no particular odor—this hearing was different. :eek2: Can anyone account for that odor? :confused:

It wasn't "the usual suspect" from Wolfeboro—who's expected to do a rumored eight years for transporting the stuff. :(

3) At dinner last evening, I encountered a friendly :) face—a diner from Massachusetts—with whom I've spoken at area restaurants. I'd seen her at the hearing, but didn't have an opportunity to re-introduce myself there.

After the hearing, she was speaking with an elderly gentleman—could that have been Hal C. Lyon, the author of local Bass-fishing lore?

This is turning into a much longer reply than I'd planned! :o

4) Anyway, it turns out this person lives at the northern reach of the Barber Pole NWZ, and their family is opposed to that NWZ—saying:

:confused:

"The NWZ is too long—we and our neighbors have been water-skiing through there for ages. "

:rolleye1:

[OCDACTIVE]

GRANTED!

"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.

Basically this will cancel the petition outright.

[Hammond]

GRANTED!

"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.

Basically this will cancel the petition outright.

Wow. Nice to see that the SBONH group was able to change the outcome of this attempt buy a few to slip this No Wake Zone proposal through the system.

To me it seemed that SBONH did not take sides on the issue but rather challenged the process. I find that to be a very important distinction and applaud them and their efforts to see that a small vocal minority could not push their agenda through the system without allowing ALL in the area the opportunity to provide their input on the proposed NWZ.

This was NOT a Go Fast agenda but a DO IT the RIGHT WAY initiative. Regardless of the eventual outcome of the Barber Pole NWZ I admire the goal of SBONH.

Responsible legislation makes noting but good (and proper) sense.

Wonder how Turtle Boy, Sunset on the Dock, El Chase and their very few verbose and prolific posting cohorts will try to spin this success.

Bravo SBONH :patriot: and thank you.

[Bearislandmoose]

I think its great that someone is finally stepping up and putting all these old fogies back in their place. All these efforts to slow everyone down are just driving tourists away from New Hampshire. Speed used to be king on Winni, now it is suddenly a bad word? That channel is plenty wide enough for boats to pass each other full throttle. I am a bass fisherman and we need to go through there all the time. If we have to slow down, it costs us money. We are working with our rep to have the speed limit repealed. He will be filing a bill right after the election. Stay tuned. Safe Boaters or Unsafe boaters, I don't care. I just want our lake back the way it was a couple of years ago when you could do pretty much as you pleased without worrying about your speed. I agree with OCD, its time to put the throttle down.

[hazelnut]

I think its great that someone is finally stepping up and putting all these old fogies back in their place. All these efforts to slow everyone down are just driving tourists away from New Hampshire. Speed used to be king on Winni, now it is suddenly a bad word? That channel is plenty wide enough for boats to pass each other full throttle. I am a bass fisherman and we need to go through there all the time. If we have to slow down, it costs us money. We are working with our rep to have the speed limit repealed. He will be filing a bill right after the election. Stay tuned. Safe Boaters or Unsafe boaters, I don't care. I just want our lake back the way it was a couple of years ago when you could do pretty much as you pleased without worrying about your speed. I agree with OCD, its time to put the throttle down.

:rolleye1: Nice try

[Bearislandmoose]

Tough crowd.

[Joe Kerr]

Tough crowd.

Come on now BearIslandMoose. We're not a "tough crowd" but a wise crowd. Wise to you and your kind of trolling and propaganda.

In your very first post to the forum you said I think its great that someone is finally stepping up and putting all these old fogies back in their place. All these efforts to slow everyone down are just driving tourists away from New Hampshire. Speed used to be king on Winni, now it is suddenly a bad word? That channel is plenty wide enough for boats to pass each other full throttle. {snip} you could do pretty much as you pleased without worrying about your speed. I agree with OCD, its time to put the throttle down.

You are putting words in OCD's mouth. You are trying to stir the pot and trying to portray this procedural issue accomplishment into an unlimited speed and wild cowboy scare scenario.

The forum isn't buying your bull moose. If you are not Turtle Boy, SOTD, ElChase or APS in moose clothing then I believe they put you up to this. I quoted you and bolded some of your outrageous comments. You attempt to cast a black shadow over a SBONH success. You seem to want to inflame and distract from them and their accomplishment. Your attitude is deplorable. This thread is not about speed but about the process of legislation.

We are becoming keenly aware of the tactics of the pro speed limit group and some of their supporters. Those who are afraid of SBONH and wish to discredit them and their organization.

[webmaster]

When people try to stir the pot, even stirring so obviously as above, it's usually met by a Webmaster that points out if the IP addy is the same as another current user.Bearislandmoose and elchase post from the same IP number.

[winni83]

Well now, isn’t that interesting; and to think that the illustrious and righteous El Chase told us on August 25, 2010 in post # 128 of this thread that:

“I hope this one last post can get through without editing. If it is, then I promise this will be the LAST time I ever try to opine on this site.”
“If it does make it through, then I promise you I will never darken the door of this forum again.”

I would not be surprised to see the argument raised that (a) our webmaster is wrong; (b) someone hijacked EL Chase’s IP address; (c) someone else in the El Chase household is using the IP address; or, perhaps (d) that El Chase has abandoned his fellow travelers. This is better than a soap opera.

[hazelnut]

Bearislandmoose and elchase post from the same IP number.

Don thank you so much. I really appreciate you sharing this information with the membership as it is truly your call to have done so.

[ApS]

We are becoming keenly aware of the tactics of the pro speed limit group and some of their supporters...If you are not Turtle Boy, SOTD, ElChase or APS in moose clothing then I believe they put you up to this.
Please leave me out of this: I have it especially easy in the finding of fradulent posts, polls and voting record of the "Unlimited Speeds for Winnipesaukee" crowd. :rolleye2:

Those who are afraid of SBONH and wish to discredit them and their organization.
Before anything with real meaning happens, SBONH will eventually discredit themselves—just as the NHRBA did. :rolleye1:

In the immortal words of Wednesday-Friday Addams,

"Just wait" :eek2:

http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/69936446/14590708

[Bearislandmoose]

Wonder how Turtle Boy, Sunset on the Dock, El Chase and their very few verbose and prolific posting cohorts will try to spin this success.

You all have to ask why I returned? Come on. As long as you keep dropping my name, you can't complain when I chime back in occasionally. And my post was perfectly poetic. It says exactly what you all keep saying and shows how goofy the arguments are. I clearly could not have done that as myself. I'm actually surprised that half of you did not "Thank" me before you woke up.

And how is a post under a fake name any different than OCD using the embarrassing name "Safe Boaters" for your go-fast club? You guys are hypocrites. You put on a costume ("We are really only doing this to promote full disclosure of such petitions, it has nothing to do with any objection to being told to slow down. All we really care about is safety."), then challenge other people's righteousness? Give me a break. What a bunch of phonies.

You guys were the petitioners and biggest proponents of Bourgeious' undeserved personal NWZ a few years back. Few of those fronting that petition were "local residents" then, and none of you seem concerned that your petition then got through without all this notification of the local residents. Is "Safe Boaters" going to try to have that petition repealed? Are they moving for a new hearing to set that one right? I didn't think so.

"Safe Boaters" is obviously nothing more than a group of go-fast cowboys whose sole mission is to get the SL repealed. They are biding their time with these obvious distractions (boating inspections, silly ITL bills, washing Barrett's car), but we all know what they are all about. Put the throttle down...make some Thunder.

Now stop recalling me and I'll stop posting, as promised. But every time you drop my name, whether expressly or through reference, I'll be back. You'll know its me because it will be a first time poster pointing out the idiocies of your agendas.

[winni83]

I respectfully suggest to the Webmaster that the IP address of this person be permanently blocked from further posting. At least other people who agree with him have the courage and moral character to continue to post under their member names, and for that I respect them.

[jrc]

I disagree, let him post and let him use whatever name he wants, he really can't hide his agenda.

We have to be open to people that disagree with us, we are not a bunch of Joy Baher's are we?

I Remember, when another poster kept changing his screen name, pretty soon no one took him seriously.

[winni83]

I certainly agree that this forum should generally be open to all and that debate is healthy. However, I think this poster has crossed the line and that was the reason for my suggestion. His words and actions have certainly served to undermine the credibility of whatever cause he is advocating.

[sunset on the dock]

You all have to ask why I returned? Come on. As long as you keep dropping my name, you can't complain when I chime back in occasionally. And my post was perfectly poetic. It says exactly what you all keep saying and shows how goofy the arguments are. I clearly could not have done that as myself. I'm actually surprised that half of you did not "Thank" me before you woke up.

And how is a post under a fake name any different than OCD using the embarrassing name "Safe Boaters" for your go-fast club? You guys are hypocrites. You put on a costume ("We are really only doing this to promote full disclosure of such petitions, it has nothing to do with any objection to being told to slow down. All we really care about is safety."), then challenge other people's righteousness? Give me a break. What a bunch of phonies.

You guys were the petitioners and biggest proponents of Bourgeious' undeserved personal NWZ a few years back. Few of those fronting that petition were "local residents" then, and none of you seem concerned that your petition then got through without all this notification of the local residents. Is "Safe Boaters" going to try to have that petition repealed? Are they moving for a new hearing to set that one right? I didn't think so.

"Safe Boaters" is obviously nothing more than a group of go-fast cowboys whose sole mission is to get the SL repealed. They are biding their time with these obvious distractions (boating inspections, silly ITL bills, washing Barrett's car), but we all know what they are all about. Put the throttle down...make some Thunder.

Now stop recalling me and I'll stop posting, as promised. But every time you drop my name, whether expressly or through reference, I'll be back. You'll know its me because it will be a first time poster pointing out the idiocies of your agendas.

In my book, El's comments are always welcome on this forum, under any name. No one has done more to expose the hypocrisy of certain members of the SL coalition. He has provided badly needed transparency to what is going on behind the scenes in many instances, often with surgical precision. Welcome back.
As far as the mission of some to repeal or amend the SL, I think most of our leaders in Concord are savvy enough to see what's really going on. A few fringe members of our legislature will be unable to change what most people on the lake have wanted for a very long time. The overwhelming support of the SL by the House, Senate, and letters and emails attests to this. I also hope that if a bill is put forth to exclude the Broads from the SL that there is an opposing bill put forth whereby the SL on the Broads would continue to be 45 MPH but on the rest of the lake it is substantially lower, say 35 MPH.JMO

[Bearislandmoose]

What an attempt to try to stir the pot winni83's post (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=142228&postcount=243) was not an attempt to "stir the pot", but my reply to it was? Your hypocrisy is matched only by your intellectual dishonesty. I assume that your instant conversion from a "thunder boater" to a "safe boater" must have resulted from a near death experience, and was not driven by some long term plan to reverse the SL?. Come on. :emb::emb:

I think this poster has crossed the line
Please spare me. I looked for "winni83" in the phone book, and can't find anyone by that name, so aren't you crossing the same line? In fact, I have apparently been the only one on this forum using his real name until now. Is OCD somebody's real name? Is Vitabean?
You guys sound like the press after they found out Christine O'Donnell had "dabbled in witchcraft" when she was fifteen years old. Get real. This is not testimony before a grand jury. This is an internet forum.

As I said, if you want me to stay away, stop taunting me by dropping my name out of the blue for no reason, like winni83 did. If you can't do that, then you get what you get and can't cry "foul" about it.

Wah, wah, wah.

[chipj29]

Funny, I thought this thread was about the NWZ at the Barbers Pole.

Great news that the motion to re-open was granted. No surprise that the usual trolls come out of hiding as soon as news they don't like comes out.

[Bearislandmoose]

Good job on uncovering this scam SBONH!

I don't think Chip deserves all the credit for that.

[chipj29]

I don't think Chip deserves all the credit for that.

:confused:
Say what? What exactly was I taking credit for? Other than being in agreement with some of the SBONH initiatives, I have no affiliation with them whatsoever.

elchase, why don't you take a closer look at what SBONH stands for. You might find yourself enlightened as to the organizations goals.

[NoBozo]

I suggest that there are a few more Screenames who are using that same IP Address....and one may suprise you. :D NB

[sunset on the dock]

There have been some great replies to the BP NWZ topic, both pro and con, many in the I don't Know yet category. OCD had some good feedback, Hazelnut was extremely articulate in the entire discussion. They both pointed out pros and cons, like adults that care. Best of all, they are inclusive.

Now there's an unbiased comment. Please, I just ate dinner.

It was the principle of the thing, and done by people with no principle, and selfish regard only for themselves.

Kind of like people who were against a SL despite polls, legislative bodies with bipartisan majorities for a SL, and a preponderance of emails showing people were fed up with the former status quo on the lake.



There are at least three here that remind me how important it is to be truthful to yourself and others. It must be a soulless existence to not know the difference.

There were more than three but they were bullied and badgered off this site by this very vocal minority who has few other venues on which to congregate. Truthful to yourself?? Like SBONH is primarily about safety? That you are the majority? Come on. And you accuse others of stirring the pot.
While you may attempt to take ownership of this forum it is reassuring that your group can no longer do so on the lake by marginalizing others who wish to use this beatiful resource.

[Bearislandmoose]

Come on now BearIslandMoose. We're not a "tough crowd" but a wise crowd. Wise to you and your kind of trolling and propaganda. ...The forum isn't buying your bull moose...

The best part about this one is that OCD gives you a big "Thanks" for this nonsense, as if you said just what he was thinking when he read my post. What he doesn't mention is the PM he sent to bearislandmoose right after that post...before he knew who bearislandmoose really was, welcoming me aboard, and giving me his phone number to call. What a bunch of phonies.
If you guys had named your group "Fast Boaters of New Hampshire", I'd still disagree with your agenda but would have nothing but respect for your honesty. I respect a good healthy disagreement...democracy in action. But naming yourselves "Safe Boaters", as if the people of NH are too stupid to not see through that, says everything about you and your collective honesty. I've never seen that name said without the speaker putting air quotes around the word "safe". It's like a crooked car salesman using the name "Honest John", or the biggest guy on the football team being named "Little Bill". Ya, that makes it true.
And riding the coatskirts of the honorable Power Squadron as they did their inspections to gain false integrity, then introducing ITL-ready bills through some shill of a representative to try to build a false reputation, are the things that really deserve such outrage. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.
Admit "Safe Boaters" one and only ultimate goal...to repeal the SL, and I will praise your integrity while I work against you. But play these dishonest games, and you have no excuse to call anything "over the line", or calling anyone else "dishonest". What could possibly be more "over the line" or "dishonest" than using the name "Safe Boaters" for this group of cowboys and scofflaws? Instead of directing your outrage at the phony who has embarrassed you with that moniker, you praise him...and you try to make a huge controversy out of something so trivial as a phony post under a phony name that makes a perfect point...on an internet forum. Your protest is so shallow as to be pathetic.
I have to give you credit though Joe. Assuming your name is really Joe Kerr, at least you have the fortitude to use your name before you criticize others for not using theirs. Is Joe Kerr really your name? If not, I take that back.

And who is this purveyor of wisdom from Vermont? Can I use some of those gems in my upcoming book on the Human Experience? Is that Leo Sandy in disguise? Give me a break.

[fatlazyless]

Not sure if this link www.bigbadboat.com is relevant to this thread. If the link works, it has an article about the Safe Boaters of New Hampshire, 'SBONH', that's titled "New Activist Group Seeks to Keep Lake WinniPesaukee Open for Performance Boaters" and it is dated September 23, 2010.

...thankyou very much;)!

[ApS]

"New Activist Group Seeks to Keep Lake Winnipesaukee Open for Performance Boaters"
How is this "news"?

:rolleye2:

[Bearislandmoose]

Wow. Reading the forum rules (http://www.sbonh.org/forums/misc.php?do=vsarules) at that group's website, it's no wonder nobody with an opposing view has ever joined in. Sounds like they will instantly delete any opposing view, publish the identity of the poster, and then ban him from the site. They reserve the right to delete any post that does not agree with their positions? I guess that answers the obvious question why almost every post on a "safe boating" forum seems to bash a reasonable and popular speed limit (that is working so well), brand those who support it "old coots", and sound like it was written by another member of the Thunder Club.

And most onerous, they threaten to "take legal action" against anyone who tells what is being said on the site...sort of like the rules of the Skull and Bones Society, and the Mafia. So for instance, if we had a post from the founder of the club telling what his real goal for the club is, or bragging about how he disregards our laws, or talking about how fast he has been going on a 45mph lake, or talking about all the alcohol he consumes, like he has done on this forum, and we mentioned that to non "Safe Boaters", he would sue us? And this from the same group of people who have sometimes called the moderator of this forum a "Nazi"?:eek::eek::eek:

[fatlazyless]

...good morning Pineedles....hey....got a quik question 4 U......it's that capital 'P' in WinniPesaukee....which is how the www.bigbadboat.com decided to spell it in their headline "New Activist Group Seeks to Keep Lake WinniPesaukee Open for Performance Boaters"

...I honestly have no clue about that 'P' but just maybe it's all about them wanting to put the 'P' as in Performance back into Winnipesaukee? What do you think? Got any insight on their 'P' ?

[sunset on the dock]

Wow. Reading the forum rules (http://www.sbonh.org/forums/misc.php?do=vsarules) at that group's website, it's no wonder nobody with an opposing view has ever joined in. Sounds like they will instantly delete any opposing view, publish the identity of the poster, and then ban him from the site. They reserve the right to delete any post that does not agree with their positions? I guess that answers the obvious question why almost every post on a "safe boating" forum seems to bash a reasonable and popular speed limit (that is working so well), brand those who support it "old coots", and sound like it was written by another member of the Thunder Club.

And most onerous, they threaten to "take legal action" against anyone who tells what is being said on the site...sort of like the rules of the Skull and Bones Society, and the Mafia. So for instance, if we had a post from the founder of the club telling what his real goal for the club is, or bragging about how he disregards our laws, or talking about how fast he has been going on a 45mph lake, or talking about all the alcohol he consumes, like he has done on this forum, and we mentioned that to non "Safe Boaters", he would sue us? And this from the same group of people who have sometimes called the moderator of this forum a "Nazi"?:eek::eek::eek:

These aforementioned forum rules will need to be pointed out in the future when someone states in our state legislature that "every member of the SBONH forum supports repeal of the SL". I too am disturbed by the many alcohol references by OCD in offshoreonly.com and the bragging of nearly doubling the SL on this forum (it is my understanding that hard copies were made of said admissions).

[VitaBene]

These aforementioned forum rules will need to be pointed out in the future when someone states in our state legislature that "every member of the SBONH forum supports repeal of the SL". I too am disturbed by the many alcohol references by OCD in offshoreonly.com and the bragging of nearly doubling the SL on this forum (it is my understanding that hard copies were made of said admissions).

Thanks to you and my buddy BIM (or El Chase or Ed Chase or Warren or whatever his name is today) for the comedic relief!

Have a great day!

[Bearislandmoose]

Why not talk about how a small group of people tried to sneak in a bill that no one else even knew about... Not one comment from you regarding that.

I guess you didn't read my earlier post where I did just that. I'll give it to you again (if you can excuse my "parsing");

...You guys were the petitioners and biggest proponents of Bourgeious' undeserved personal NWZ a few years back. Few of those fronting that petition were "local residents" then, and none of you seem concerned that your petition then got through without all this notification of the local residents. Is "Safe Boaters" going to try to have that petition repealed? Are they moving for a new hearing to set that one right? I didn't think so.

[Bearislandmoose]

Did they address the Barber Pole No Wake Zone situation?

Regarding that Barber Pole No Wake zone situation; you guys were the petitioners and biggest proponents of the undeserved personal No Wake Zone in front of the house of one of your own a couple of years back. Few of those fronting that petition were "local residents" then, and none of you seem concerned that your petition then got through without all this notification of the real local residents. Is "Safe" Boaters going to try to have that petition repealed? Are they moving for a new hearing to set that one right?

[sound of crickets chirping]

I didn't think so.

The hypocracy is comical.

[Bearislandmoose]

You are such an idiot. ...

And you are such a Democrat. This is so typical a response from someone like you. We have apparently decided that there are no more lines to be crossed. Resorting to such childishness as name-calling might work for you at the bar, but I am not intimidated. Aggressive behavior is no longer going to work for you and your buddies. It doesn't work on the lake, it won't work on the forum. As impossible as this may sound, you have further embarrassed yourself.
Is this how you talk to your little students? This is why home-schooling is gaining so much popularity. Who would want to trap their little girl or boy in a classroom with a "teacher" who talks like this? Do you beat them physically too, or just emotionally?