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.

Chiming in here...Once...
 

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:

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:

:rolleye1:

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

Of this lake's captains, 50% "are above average". :rolleye2: :emb:

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).

where exactly is the Barbers pole?

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:

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

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?

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.

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.

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!

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/tuft...9806E-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.

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.

new laws??
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.:(

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.

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:

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.

"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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

More Problems
 

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!

Nwz
 

Interesting reading, I hope I uploaded correctly

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:

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

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.

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.

Be carefull what you wish for
 

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.

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:.

Voices Carry
 

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.

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.

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