*New Proposed No Wake Zone*

[MAXUM]

So obviously the hearing has been held, at what point is a decision made and anyone have any idea when it'll be made public?

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

So obviously the hearing has been held, at what point is a decision made and anyone have any idea when it'll be made public?

When you see the no wake bouys going in on Sat.

Just Kidding... I haven't seen anything in the papers. Hopefully they let us know of their decision or if there will be a followup hearing.

[sunset on the dock]

O.K....let's try again. My post from yesterday truly was commending OCD on the safety inspections and was meant to express that it was good for the organization (SBONH) as a whole. Not trying to flame anyone here and OCD responded with none of the below the belt hits that came from others subsequently...let's keep this discussion on a civil course.
That being said, having visited with friends on the island, one of several of their concerns has been night time boat traffic. According to what we've read here we have a channel of 390' between buoy and island. So at night you can legally have 2 boats approaching each other at 30 MPH. It seems like a no brainer that this is an appropriate place for a NWZ. Last night's accident, occuring in a much larger space, makes this seem even clearer.
This is why I think that it is too bad that the officers of SBONH can't meet/call emergently to support such a simple boating solution to a significant problem. What's the harm? It's an obvious choice to counter the one issue palaver that is being thrown at both SBONH and Winnfabs. SOTD

[DEJ]

SOTD, how about this idea, SBONH and Winnfabs meet/call emergently to support such a simple boating solution to a significant problem.

BTW it is very clear SBONH is not the one issue palaver you suggested.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Why is it that, since a nighttime accident occured last night between two boats traveling at a speed below the current speed limit, the immediate reaction is to slap a new rule/law into effect? This area at Barber's Pole is wide enough to accomodate two boats (day or night), so let it be. If two boats are going to collide they can collide anywhere on the lake. Placing one small area as a no-wake zone is not going to solve any problems. When are people going to stop trying to legislate and make rules to "keep us safe"?

[Finder]

I really don't understand. Just why do you people have such a big problem with slowing down for a little while?

[DEJ]

Originally Posted by Finder

I really don't understand. Just why do you people have such a big problem with slowing down for a little while?

Who is going fast?

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Originally Posted by Finder

I really don't understand. Just why do you people have such a big problem with slowing down for a little while?

As has been previously stated, there is more to this issue than just a simple solution as "slowing down a little". There are additional factors both plus and minus that need to be be considered.

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by Finder

I really don't understand. Just why do you people have such a big problem with slowing down for a little while?

Exactly. All this talk about how the lake will be "divided" if we were to have two new NWZ's is ridiculous. The lake won't be divided at all. And BTW, I have to slow down when coming through Center Harbor from Moultonboro by car...it's no big crisis. And on the lake it's a pleasure to be cruising along slowly, seeing houses, wildlife, and actually having a conversation. Some boaters seem to have a mind set that there are only 2 speeds...stop and full throttle. Very sad.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Exactly. All this talk about how the lake will be "divided" if we were to have two new NWZ's is ridiculous. The lake won't be divided at all. And BTW, I have to slow down when coming through Center Harbor from Moultonboro by car...it's no big crisis. And on the lake it's a pleasure to be cruising along slowly, seeing houses, wildlife, and actually having a conversation. Some boaters seem to have a mind set that there are only 2 speeds...stop and full throttle. Very sad.

I'm very rarely at full throttle, our boat just isn't that type. But I do find that coming off plane and getting back on for no good reason annoying*. As MB said a NWZ is a 24/7 solution to what may only be a few hours a week problem ... and may incur other problems (increased wake damage). In this particular case the question is whether any benefit outweighs those problems. FWIW I find cruising the lake at my 30 - 35 mph quite pleasurable.

*I also prefer the EZ Pass to having to slow, stop and pay the toll. To each his own I guess.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

I'm very rarely at full throttle, our boat just isn't that type. But I do find that coming off plane and getting back on for no good reason annoying.

Talk to any lakefront owner that lives on the end of no wake zones. Boats coming off and returning to plane causes far more shore erosion. And they learned the hard way. They wish the NWZ starts or end at another point other than in front of their property.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Exactly. All this talk about how the lake will be "divided" if we were to have two new NWZ's is ridiculous. The lake won't be divided at all. And BTW, I have to slow down when coming through Center Harbor from Moultonboro by car...it's no big crisis. And on the lake it's a pleasure to be cruising along slowly, seeing houses, wildlife, and actually having a conversation. Some boaters seem to have a mind set that there are only 2 speeds...stop and full throttle. Very sad.

Going slow may be a pleasure for you, but maybe it's not for everyone. You know what...if I want to go slow I'll go out in my rowboat or sailboat. However, if I want to go faster than slow, I'll go out in my powerboat. Boating is NOT a crime, even though you and your ilk would like to make it a crime. Going "slow" is not the standard, neither is going "fast". This is about principal, nothing more. You people are trying to lump all powerboaters together as criminals and cowboys. I take my responsibility quite seriously and am always conscious of my surroundings - both during the day and at night. Why do you think you are always right with your "slow down" attitude?

POWERBOATING IS NOT A CRIME!

[hazelnut]

I'm going to pull rank on everyone in the thread except JTA,

We sit right across from the Barbers Pole so we have front row seats to this area every time we are at the house. I can only say that the "problem" only exists from about 12:00pm on Saturday until 12:00pm Sunday. We are talking about a 24 hour period on weekends during the summer months. That's it. For the most part boats do a good job maintaining adequate distance as there is plenty of room to pass safely. Occasionally people choose to tube and ski in the area, IMHO not the best spot but who am I to say? When this happens many if not all the boats come down to PLOWING speed as I call it. The the requisite Cruiser comes by and throws up a huge wake. Couple all of this with the back and forth of both Sandy Island Shuttle boats and you have chaos. A good solution would be to remove the Red Buoy in the middle of the channel and dredge the tiny little area that it marks. It really is a small hazard and if you go inside the hazard between it and Tuftonboro Neck you can navigate safely. That would open up significant more space in that the narrowest of the area along the stretch.

During the week and off peak hours it would be absurd to have to putter along what could amount to substantial stretch of water. I'm not sold either way. As I said before it would alleviate my stress level for 24 hours a week as Boat Wakes smash my shoreline and whip my 6,000lb vessel around like a ragdoll. My 13 Whaler is inevitably damaged every year sitting at the dock as a line snaps or comes undone, etc. But this is all for roughly 8 periods of 24 hours. The other times there is no issue. So I could be selfish and say yes pass this law and screw all of you that have to come through the area. OR I could look at the pro's and con's and get opinions from other users of the area.

I can tell you that the list is pretty even on both sides now.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

A good solution would be to remove the Red Buoy in the middle of the channel and dredge the tiny little area that it marks. It really is a small hazard and if you go inside the hazard between it and Tuftonboro Neck you can navigate safely. That would open up significant more space in that the narrowest of the area along the stretch.

Instead of dredging, if there's room to navigate east of the re-topped spar and the shoal, why not just add a black-topped spar on the other side of the shoal?

[Turtle Boy]

Just took a nice boat ride with the kids. There seems to about twice the distance between buoy(s) and land at the Little Bear passage than the Barber Pole one. All this talk about how a NWZ in one area necessesitates another elsewhere seems like nonsense, not that 2 NWZ's would really "lock up the lake". And as said above by Finder, what's the big deal in slowing down for a short while?

[Rattlesnake Guy]

DaveR is right. A black Marker would solve the problem.

After Turtle Boys observation above I took a ride over this morning and updated my drawing. Seems like it is not the tightest spot on the lake to me. Two boats can pass easily even following the 150 foot rules.

[Turtle Boy]

I have to say I'm glad to see this debate in progress...less time and energy available to plot overthrowing something I really do care about (the law that shall not be discussed).

[OCDACTIVE]

Seriously TB, give it a rest and stop trying to stir the pot. We have all left it alone. Why aren't you?

[robmac]

TB,just go back in your shell and everything will be alright. IMHO

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

"...I took a ride over this morning and updated my drawing..."

You passed by my sailboat this morning...'hope my return-wave was seen.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

You passed by my sailboat this morning...'hope my return-wave was seen.

APS, I thought it was you but was not sure. Glad I was not close enough to trigger the solar powered laser beam.

[jrc]

There is no way the state will dedge the lake for traffic improvement.

I still can't figure out how people who drive cars every day, suddenly lose the normal "stay to the right" sense when on their boat.

I see this so many times at narrow spots. Just stay as far right as you can, 150's from shore or hug the markers, the other guys should as well and no problem. Every week I experience this beween Eagle and Pitchwood, at the south end of Bear Island, and between Pig and Lockes.

I really thought education would help but it doesn't seem to be working yet. I think the classes focus too much on technical jargon and not enough on practical operation.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by jrc

I really thought education would help but it doesn't seem to be working yet. I think the classes focus too much on technical jargon and not enough on practical operation.

Might as well say no practical operation. But that's better accomplished On The Water. The course is good background information, and does contain some things that people should know. A good summary of important items would be helpful.

People tend to wander in boats, which is natural given the open, no defined roadway feel of the open water. Additional training should show that this should become more right side of the road as the waterway narrows. I think many people try to take the shortest distance route, which leads them to a left side of the road route.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by jrc

"...There is no way the state will dedge the lake for traffic improvement..."

The expense of moving a few rocks around underwater—once—is far less costly than endless enforcement of any NWZ.

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

APS, I thought it was you but was not sure. Glad I was not close enough to trigger the solar powered laser beam.

Yesterday's abnormally strong SW wind had me becalmed in my own shoreline's "wind-shadow".

In trying to get back home, I used my PED ("powerboat excluder device") on several tubers dependent—for some reason—on the calm waters there. After a few minutes, all the tubers left for the Tuftonboro shoreline!

I believe I can hire-out my specialized "sailboat services" along some selected shorelines...

...How's $40 an hour sound?

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

The expense of moving a few rocks around underwater—once—is far less costly than endless enforcement of any NWZ.

Probably why they don't do it too much. Besides, they get too many calls to break up rafts.

[Lucky1]

I hate to sound silly but what is a Winni Fab????

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

DaveR is right. A black Marker would solve the problem.

After Turtle Boys observation above I took a ride over this morning and updated my drawing. Seems like it is not the tightest spot on the lake to me. Two boats can pass easily even following the 150 foot rules.

Great depiction of the pole.. I think most would agree with you that 2 boats have no problem passing. The issues come when you have multiple boats at multiple speeds as well as someone thinking that is the best place to teach their kid how to ski their first time on a busy Sat. afternoon.... (obviously I am exaggerating a bit) But when I have seen issues occur there it rarely only involves two boats. Again I haven't made a decision as of yet whether the answer is a NWZ however.

[ishoot308]

Rather than make it a no wake zone, how about a no skiing / tubing zone. I would think that would help somewhat...

Just a thought;

Dan

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

Rather than make it a no wake zone, how about a no skiing / tubing zone. I would think that would help somewhat...

Just a thought;

Dan

Brilliant idea. The only times it's been bad going through there were when I've encountered people tubing. With all the open space on the lake, why anyone would choose there to do that sort of thing is beyond me. Another place that baffles me in the same way is the area south of Sandy Point.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

What is the problem with Hazelnut's suggestion? Seems simple enough to me.

Just eliminate the little marker, clear the little area it marks.

This is just a guess, but I would think that with all the bureaucratic red tape involved with doing such a project, it probably would take years to get done.

Dan

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

Great depiction of the pole.. I think most would agree with you that 2 boats have no problem passing. The issues come when you have multiple boats at multiple speeds as well as someone thinking that is the best place to teach their kid how to ski their first time on a busy Sat. afternoon.... (obviously I am exaggerating a bit) But when I have seen issues occur there it rarely only involves two boats. Again I haven't made a decision as of yet whether the answer is a NWZ however.

Sadly Scott you are not exaggerating as this is what does occur from time to time.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

That being said, having visited with friends on the island, one of several of their concerns has been night time boat traffic. According to what we've read here we have a channel of 390' between buoy and island. So at night you can legally have 2 boats approaching each other at 30 MPH. It seems like a no brainer that this is an appropriate place for a NWZ. Last night's accident, occuring in a much larger space, makes this seem even clearer.
This is why I think that it is too bad that the officers of SBONH can't meet/call emergently to support such a simple boating solution to a significant problem. What's the harm? It's an obvious choice to counter the one issue palaver that is being thrown at both SBONH and Winnfabs. SOTD

SOTD,

Believe me this is an issue that SBONH is looking at and trying to get information on. I will not speak for SBONH as a whole at the moment as we have not all spent the time adequately discussing the issue as a group, but here is my personal take.

Personally I don't have a problem either way with NWZ. What I do question is how big they want to make it. Further I believe that if they make the area at the Barbers pole a NWZ, that the next issue becomes what to do at the Long Island Little bear Narrows (which is as narrow if not narrower then the barbers pole). Doing one and not the other is just going to shift the problem to a new location. And that certainly is not what we want to see.

Unfortunately the notification about this issue has been poor, and a surprise to many of us. Unfortunately I don't think this is a easy as a support or don't support issue. As I mention above putting this proposed NWZ in place is only going to move the problem to another location.

Now if both NWZ are put into place the lake is basically divided. And that saddens me...

In short the correct path here is not easily defined. As a group I do believe that SBONH will look at this issue, however it is not something we are immediately able to respond too, as there are way to many variable to take into account.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

This is why I think that it is too bad that the officers of SBONH can't meet/call emergently to support such a simple boating solution to a significant problem. What's the harm? It's an obvious choice to counter the one issue palaver that is being thrown at both SBONH and Winnfabs. SOTD

What is the significant problem that the new NWZ would solve?

[Rattlesnake Guy]

I am not certain of the markers and traffic patterns in this region but here is a scale photograph showing 300' wide boat paths.

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

I am not certain of the markers and traffic patterns in this region but here is a scale photograph showing 300' wide boat paths.

Except you have the boats going on the wrong side of the buoy!