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

hazelnut · 11-28-2010, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

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

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

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

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

ApS · 11-30-2010, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

the residents of the area are happy with the State's decision.

Finally, somebody's saying,

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

hazelnut · 12-02-2010, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Finally, somebody's saying,

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

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

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

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

There I said it SO WHAT?!?!

You are one weird dude.

sunset on the dock · 12-03-2010, 02:07 PM

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

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

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Birch Island, was among several residents to say yesterday that, after the New Hampshire Department of Safety (DOS) rescinded its order granting their petition for a "no wake zone" on procedural grounds, they expected to submit a new request as soon as possible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

gtagrip · 12-03-2010, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VtSteve · 12-03-2010, 03:16 PM

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

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

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

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

gtagrip · 12-03-2010, 04:05 PM

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

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

But this one is a piece of work

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

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

ApS · 12-04-2010, 04:04 AM

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

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

There I said it SO WHAT?!?! You are one weird dude.

If "one weird dude" is what it takes to disclose your genuine position, then that's what it will take.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VtSteve

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

In response to this discussion, I toured the Barbers Pole area myself.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by VtSteve

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

VtSteve · 12-04-2010, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

sunset on the dock · 12-04-2010, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VtSteve

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

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

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

VtSteve · 12-04-2010, 10:47 AM

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

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

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

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

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

hazelnut · 12-04-2010, 11:03 AM

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

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

Go there and read. Take the time to weed through the mundane day to day trivial conversations we friendly neighbors have with each other,

Read through it all APS, BIM, SOTD etc. Educate yourself on the real fact that these are my neighbors and I. The REAL living breathing residents of Cow Island, many of the posters are the people in the actual channel. Read about how we unanimously do not think a NWZ is warranted for the channel.

Can't WAIT for the spin

sunset on the dock · 12-04-2010, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Can't WAIT for the spin

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

hazelnut · 12-04-2010, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

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

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

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

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

sunset on the dock · 12-04-2010, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

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

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

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

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

VtSteve · 12-04-2010, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

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

A letter from Ed Chase constitutes what exactly?

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

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

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

Seaplane Pilot · 12-05-2010, 08:38 AM

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

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

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

VtSteve · 12-05-2010, 09:58 AM

[QUOTE=Seaplane Pilot;145294]

Quote:

Originally Posted by VtSteve

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule - 6 requires that every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions. In determining safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account: the visibility, traffic density, maneuverability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability, at night the presence of background light such as from shore lights, the state of the wind, sea, current, proximity of navigational hazards, and the draft in relation to the available depth of water. Additionally, vessels with operational radar must use that radar to its fullest extent to determine the risk of collision.

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

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

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

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

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

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

VtSteve · 12-05-2010, 10:17 AM

My memory is just fine APS. I was so harsh in my criticism of the NWZ speeder that I think even BI thought I was a little overboard, so to speak

I would have him kicked off the lake and also spend a few days or more behind bars. Spin that.

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

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

RANGER CANOE CO · 12-05-2010, 04:08 PM

Grey hair, probably been riding forever on Winni.

gtagrip · 12-06-2010, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RANGER CANOE CO

Grey hair, probably been riding forever on Winni.

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

ApS · 12-07-2010, 04:35 AM

...still...

Quote:

Originally Posted by VtSteve

My memory is just fine APS. I was so harsh in my criticism of the NWZ speeder...I would have him kicked off the lake and also spend a few days or more behind bars.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by VtSteve

Is there any reason we can't have real adult conversations without you spinning and trying to paint people in a bad light?...I mentioned many times that most of the accidents you speak of involve excessive alcohol consumption, but many boaters, not just in any one group.

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

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by VtSteve

I'll let your insinuations stand for what they are as well.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by RANGER CANOE CO

Grey hair, probably been riding forever on Winni.

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

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

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

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

I think you meant to write ridiculous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

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

Sorry...

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

sunset on the dock · 12-08-2010, 09:20 AM

From today's LDS:

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

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

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

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

C. Clark

Tuftonboro

Seaplane Pilot · 12-08-2010, 01:40 PM