Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Lake Issues > Boating Issues
Home Forums Gallery Blogs YouTube Channel Classifieds Links Calendar Register FAQDonate Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-19-2010, 10:55 PM   #1
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,348
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 504
Thanked 461 Times in 161 Posts
Default *New Proposed No Wake Zone*

Does anybody know anything about this? It seems as though this is flying under the radar and it has tremendous implications on anyone who has property north of Cow Island. It all but "No Wake Locks" anyone coming from the Northeast Quarter of the lake.

Notice of Public Hearing - State of NH
Friday, July 16, 2010 at 1:00 PM
Town House
Printer-Friendly Version

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY
NOTICE OF HEARING
PURSUANT TO RSA 270:12, A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PETITION SEEKING A NO WAKE ZONE WITHIN BARBER’S POLE WILL BE HELD ON FRIDAY, JULY 16, 2010 AT 1:00 PM AT THE TUFTONBORO MEETING HOUSE, ROUTE 109-A, TUFTONBORO, NEW HAMPSHIRE. THE PETITIONERS SEEK IMPOSITION OF A NO WAKE ZONE WITHIN THE AREA DESCRIBED AS LOCATED BETWEEN THE SOUTHEASTERN TIP OF LITTLE BIRCH ISLAND AND LOT #17 ON THE MAINLAND TO A POINT BETWEEN LOT #284 ON COW ISLAND AND LOT #3 ON THE MAINLAND IN LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE LOCATED IN TUFTONBORO, NEW HAMPSHIRE,.
TESTIMONY WILL BE ALLOWED THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:
(1) THE SIZE OF THE BODY OF WATER OR PORTION THEREOF FOR WHICH RULEMAKING ACTION IS BEING CONSIDERED.
(2) THE EFFECT WHICH ADOPTING OR NOT ADOPTING THE RULE (S) WOULD HAVE UPON:
(A) PUBLIC SAFETY;
(B) THE MAINTENANCE OF RESIDENTIAL, RECREATIONAL AND SCENIC VALUES;
(C) THE VARIETY OF USES OF SUCH BODY OF WATER OR PORTION THEREOF;
(D) THE ENVIRONMENT AND WATER QUALITY;
(E) THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES.
(3) THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE AFFECTED, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BY ADOPTING OR NOT ADOPTING THE RULE(S); AND
(4) THE AVAILABILITY AND PRACTICALITY OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE RULE(S).
PERSONS WISHING TO TESTIFY ARE URGED TO COORDINATE THEIR TESTIMONY TO AVOID UNNECESSARY DUPLICATION OR REPETITION. THE DEPARTMENT WITHIN A PERIOD OF SEVEN (7) DAYS SUBSEQUENT TO THE SCHEDULED HEARING MUST RECEIVE SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN MATERIAL.
AUTHORITY FOR HEARING: RSA 270:12 AND SAF-C 409.
JOHN J. BARTHELMES, COMMISSIONER OF SAFETY
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: C. N. DUCLOS, ADMINISTRATOR
BUREAU OF HEARINGS
33 HAZEN DRIVE, CONCORD, NH 03305
TELEPHONE (603)-271-3486
SPEECH/HEARING IMPAIRED HELP LINE TTY/TDD RELAY 1-800-735-2964
hazelnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2010, 08:20 AM   #2
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

How large is that area? seems a bit overkill... I would agree that one could be done right where it narrows before entering the broads, but the whole length seems a bit much.
OCDACTIVE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2010, 08:27 AM   #3
VitaBene
Senior Member
 
VitaBene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 3,122
Thanks: 1,250
Thanked 1,375 Times in 688 Posts
Default WOW Long NWZ

That is a long NWZ. I will have to look at the chart but isn't that going to push people to use the "hole in the wall" with its shorter NWZ?
VitaBene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2010, 08:28 AM   #4
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,773
Thanks: 226
Thanked 633 Times in 370 Posts
Default

That'll just make everyone go between Little Bear and Long Island and make a mess of the six pack area.
Dave R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2010, 08:32 AM   #5
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

I personally wouldn't mind a small NWZ there.. I have seen / had a few close calls coming into the pole and a Capt. Bonehead not staying to the side and cutting too close in clear violation of the safe passage law. Not to mention those, who for some reason, think it is a good idea to pull skiers and tubers in this small area. I've even had a run in with a fisherman with outriggers going perpendicular across the pole. Some people just have no clue.

But a small NWZ at the closest point is not such a bad idea.. Just my 2 cents.
OCDACTIVE is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 07-20-2010, 10:33 AM   #6
LIforrelaxin
Senior Member
 
LIforrelaxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island, not that one, the one on Winnipesaukee
Posts: 2,269
Thanks: 792
Thanked 657 Times in 356 Posts
Default

Hummm interesting this seems like a very bad idea. Essentially all traffic will be re routed over to the Long Island Little Bear Island Area....and as previous mentioned make a mess out the south side of the Six Pack. Right at the corner of the Barber pole I could see a Small NWZ ala eagle and governs Island style but that should be about it...

If this goes through expect the next hearing to be about a NWZ at the Little Bear, LI Narrow's passage, and the lake will essentially become divided.

With Lake Traffic on the decline in my estimation I don't see the reasoning behind this move.
__________________
Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island.....
LIforrelaxin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2010, 10:45 AM   #7
Little Bear
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 467
Thanks: 71
Thanked 167 Times in 87 Posts
Thumbs down No Wake - NO WAY

The passage between Little Bear and Long Island is more narrow that the Barber's Pole area and is already congested on busy days. At one time (in the 70's I believe) this was a no-wake area, so unfortunately if Barber's Pole becomes no-wake then I'm afraid the Little Bear/Long Island passage will also have to become no-wake. You can't put 10 lbs of crap in a 5 lb bag - it's already a bottleneck. Who dreams up these things anyway?
Little Bear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2010, 11:17 AM   #8
TomC
Senior Member
 
TomC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: MA & Moultonboro
Posts: 540
Thanks: 8
Thanked 26 Times in 18 Posts
Default summer camps?

don't the YMCA camps use this area for water skiing/tubing/etc? If so, that will put a damper on that activity also. Its not like they can load up dozens of kids and take them elsewhere.
TomC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2010, 12:45 PM   #9
cowisl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cow Island
Posts: 164
Thanks: 6
Thanked 19 Times in 11 Posts
Default

If people followed existing rules, you wouldnt need a NWZ! My family has property on Barbers Pole and a majority of people do not know what 150' means!
cowisl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2010, 12:53 PM   #10
chocophile
Senior Member
 
chocophile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: 19-Mile Bay
Posts: 101
Thanks: 10
Thanked 28 Times in 11 Posts
Default NWZ Might be Needed

We went through the Barber's Pole area last weekend as a canoe with three people tried to cross that area between the mainland and the islands -- near Pick Point. They seemed inexperienced and weren't maintaining a straight course. I came off plane and slowed to no-wake speed, but the boat coming in from the broads slowed to max-wake speed and nearly swamped the canoe. The boat in back of me came close before he slowed to max-wake speed also and was on a course to pass me.

It continues to amaze me that people think max-wake speed is a good strategy in those situations.

The boat in back of me should have realized there was a reason I had slowed, rather than trying to go around me.

That area isn't very good for canoes, kayaks and sunfish, but I have seen them fairly often. They have every right to be there, and boaters should be more courteous. At the same time, if I lived in that area I wouldn't let anyone try to cross to the islands during busy periods.

Having been in a kayak that was nearly swamped by a too-close max-wake boater, I think there should be more education about that particular situation.

If everything goes right along the Barber's Pole, there's no problem. But I have frequently seen discourteous or illegal actions by boaters that raise safety issues.

Unfortunately, a no-wake zone might be needed.
chocophile is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to chocophile For This Useful Post:
OCDACTIVE (07-20-2010), VitaBene (07-20-2010)
Old 07-20-2010, 01:00 PM   #11
Lakegeezer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,493
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 281
Thanked 467 Times in 208 Posts
Default

When there is no problem 99% of the time, it is stupid to put in a new rule to address the 1%. As with other problem areas, existing rules apply. Going by a canoe at maximum wake is illegal. No need to impose restrictions on those boating during the week or in the off-months. If you are 150 feet from shore - there should be no restrictions on wake. Or, at least make the rule only apply on busy hours during summer weekends. The address to give the state input is in the first posting. Hopefully enough of us will take the time to give it.
__________________
-lg
Lakegeezer is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Lakegeezer For This Useful Post:
OCDACTIVE (07-20-2010)
Old 07-20-2010, 01:13 PM   #12
DEJ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 329
Thanks: 242
Thanked 179 Times in 80 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakegeezer View Post
When there is no problem 99% of the time, it is stupid to put in a new rule to address the 1%. As with other problem areas, existing rules apply. Going by a canoe at maximum wake is illegal. No need to impose restrictions on those boating during the week or in the off-months. If you are 150 feet from shore - there should be no restrictions on wake. Or, at least make the rule only apply on busy hours during summer weekends. The address to give the state input is in the first posting. Hopefully enough of us will take the time to give it.
Lakegeezer is right on the mark with his comments. No need for additional laws or restrictions since we currently have laws that address most every issue. I have been through this area when an MP boat was sitting off to the side just watching, it is amazing how many boaters all of a sudden know the laws when MP is around.
DEJ is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to DEJ For This Useful Post:
AC2717 (07-20-2010), bigpatsfan (07-27-2010), BroadHopper (07-20-2010), LIforrelaxin (07-20-2010), Martha Marlee (07-21-2010), Misty Blue (07-22-2010), nhmom6477 (08-02-2010), OCDACTIVE (07-20-2010), Ryan (07-20-2010), Sue Doe-Nym (07-20-2010), TiltonBB (07-26-2010), VitaBene (07-20-2010)
Old 07-20-2010, 08:53 PM   #13
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 2,148
Thanks: 191
Thanked 1,374 Times in 554 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakegeezer View Post
When there is no problem 99% of the time, it is stupid to put in a new rule to address the 1%. As with other problem areas, existing rules apply. Going by a canoe at maximum wake is illegal. No need to impose restrictions on those boating during the week or in the off-months. If you are 150 feet from shore- there should be no restrictions on wake. Or, at least make the rule only apply on busy hours during summer weekends. The address to give the state input is in the first posting. Hopefully enough of us will take the time to give it.
I totally 100% agree. How many times must it be said... you CANNOT legislate responsibility?

Put all the laws on the books isn't going to fix a thing when the two following variables are in play and always will be:

a. Total ignorance or outright defiance of the law
b. Limited resources to enforce said laws, which let's face it are subject to select enforcement at times.


While that stretch does see a fair amount of traffic it is hardly so narrow that two boats if properly driven cannot pass on plane safely and still maintain 150' off shore and eachother. If not the laws already exist to deal with those situations and I submit that if it's still a problem then I reference point a above and say what difference does another law make when it's a reality exacerbated by point b.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MAXUM For This Useful Post:
Pineedles (07-21-2010), Resident 2B (07-20-2010)
Old 07-20-2010, 11:09 PM   #14
Mee-n-Mac
Senior Member
 
Mee-n-Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,943
Thanks: 23
Thanked 111 Times in 51 Posts
Exclamation Situational awareness

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAXUM View Post
I totally 100% agree. How many times must it be said... you CANNOT legislate responsibility?

Put all the laws on the books isn't going to fix a thing when the two following variables are in play and always will be:

a. Total ignorance or outright defiance of the law
b. Limited resources to enforce said laws, which let's face it are subject to select enforcement at times.


While that stretch does see a fair amount of traffic it is hardly so narrow that two boats if properly driven cannot pass on plane safely and still maintain 150' off shore and eachother. If not the laws already exist to deal with those situations and I submit that if it's still a problem then I reference point a above and say what difference does another law make when it's a reality exacerbated by point b.
Agreed ! I was exiting the channel, headed out into the Broads and had 3 boats incoming towards me. I slowed a bit to let them sort themselves out and let everyone line up for a port-port pass. At that time Capt B came up "fast" behind me and then 20' off my stern slowed and then went to pass on my starboard. If he had bothered to look he'd have seen the other boats but alas boneheads is as boneheads do. But nooo, he went to pass, got along/ahead ofd me and then saw the other boats and then slowed to max wake speed only to cut 20' behind me again. Mee was more livid than I, I was a bit busy sorting out the incoming traffic. A NWZ there might have helped though who's to say Capt B would bother obeying that. What's not taught in any classroom is "situational awareness".

Then again who says Capt B can learn ....
__________________
Mee'n'Mac
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity or ignorance. The latter are a lot more common than the former." - RAH
Mee-n-Mac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2010, 03:08 AM   #15
Greene's Basin Girl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 1,514
Thanks: 394
Thanked 526 Times in 268 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazelnut View Post
Does anybody know anything about this? It seems as though this is flying under the radar and it has tremendous implications on anyone who has property north of Cow Island. It all but "No Wake Locks" anyone coming from the Northeast Quarter of the lake.

Notice of Public Hearing - State of NH
Friday, July 16, 2010 at 1:00 PM
Town House
Printer-Friendly Version

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY
NOTICE OF HEARING
PURSUANT TO RSA 270:12, A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PETITION SEEKING A NO WAKE ZONE WITHIN BARBER’S POLE WILL BE HELD ON FRIDAY, JULY 16, 2010 AT 1:00 PM AT THE TUFTONBORO MEETING HOUSE, ROUTE 109-A, TUFTONBORO, NEW HAMPSHIRE. THE PETITIONERS SEEK IMPOSITION OF A NO WAKE ZONE WITHIN THE AREA DESCRIBED AS LOCATED BETWEEN THE SOUTHEASTERN TIP OF LITTLE BIRCH ISLAND AND LOT #17 ON THE MAINLAND TO A POINT BETWEEN LOT #284 ON COW ISLAND AND LOT #3 ON THE MAINLAND IN LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE LOCATED IN TUFTONBORO, NEW HAMPSHIRE,.
TESTIMONY WILL BE ALLOWED THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:
(1) THE SIZE OF THE BODY OF WATER OR PORTION THEREOF FOR WHICH RULEMAKING ACTION IS BEING CONSIDERED.
(2) THE EFFECT WHICH ADOPTING OR NOT ADOPTING THE RULE (S) WOULD HAVE UPON:
(A) PUBLIC SAFETY;
(B) THE MAINTENANCE OF RESIDENTIAL, RECREATIONAL AND SCENIC VALUES;
(C) THE VARIETY OF USES OF SUCH BODY OF WATER OR PORTION THEREOF;
(D) THE ENVIRONMENT AND WATER QUALITY;
(E) THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES.
(3) THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE AFFECTED, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BY ADOPTING OR NOT ADOPTING THE RULE(S); AND
(4) THE AVAILABILITY AND PRACTICALITY OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE RULE(S).
PERSONS WISHING TO TESTIFY ARE URGED TO COORDINATE THEIR TESTIMONY TO AVOID UNNECESSARY DUPLICATION OR REPETITION. THE DEPARTMENT WITHIN A PERIOD OF SEVEN (7) DAYS SUBSEQUENT TO THE SCHEDULED HEARING MUST RECEIVE SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN MATERIAL.
AUTHORITY FOR HEARING: RSA 270:12 AND SAF-C 409.
JOHN J. BARTHELMES, COMMISSIONER OF SAFETY
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: C. N. DUCLOS, ADMINISTRATOR
BUREAU OF HEARINGS
33 HAZEN DRIVE, CONCORD, NH 03305
TELEPHONE (603)-271-3486
SPEECH/HEARING IMPAIRED HELP LINE TTY/TDD RELAY 1-800-735-2964
Somebody proposed a new no-wake a few years ago up near Green's Basin. Many of us felt that we have enough no-wake zones in the area. We went to hearing and discussed our opposition. We ended up winning. That was the end of that!
Greene's Basin Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2010, 08:46 AM   #16
Lake Fan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Whortleberry Island
Posts: 79
Thanks: 11
Thanked 27 Times in 15 Posts
Default

I think we should save time and just enact an NWZ from say, the southern end of Alton Bay up to Meredith, over to Center Harbor, then to Wolfeboro and then back over to Alton Bay. All problems solved right now instead of the piecemeal approach they are using.

The comments regarding the max-wake boaters are all too true. The Capt. B's live in a bizarro world where "no wake" means exactly the opposite...
Lake Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2010, 09:50 AM   #17
JTA
Senior Member
 
JTA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Hebron, CT
Posts: 196
Thanks: 21
Thanked 16 Times in 14 Posts
Default

Most of the problems in the area are on Saturdays and Sundays for a few hours each day (I have a place in the area). The Marine Patrol could make a living by hanging out there and enforcing the huge number of boating law violations that occur. The biggest problem occurs from the HUGE wakes left by the very large cruiser-style boats that plow water. These boaters are the rudest group on the lake. Are they unaware of the large waves created by their wakes or do they just not care?
JTA is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to JTA For This Useful Post:
hazelnut (07-21-2010)
Old 07-21-2010, 10:24 AM   #18
Kracken
Senior Member
 
Kracken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Alton
Posts: 223
Thanks: 46
Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake Fan View Post
I think we should save time and just enact an NWZ from say, the southern end of Alton Bay up to Meredith, over to Center Harbor, then to Wolfeboro and then back over to Alton Bay. All problems solved right now instead of the piecemeal approach they are using.

The comments regarding the max-wake boaters are all too true. The Capt. B's live in a bizarro world where "no wake" means exactly the opposite...


Please don’t give the “padding on every corner crew” any ideas.

You can’t reason with and you can’t teach Capt. Boneheads. Trying to teach boating laws and common sense to them is like trying to teaching physics to a Hershey Bar.

A few years ago I was exiting Alton Bay, when low and behold there was Admiral Bonehead displaying his prowess for all.

He was towing 2 tubes with three children on each tube between Little Mark and the east shore. There where also only 3 people onboard. When I saw this I slowed down to 15 mph and stayed about 300 yards away directly behind the tubers. The entire time the people on the boat were waving their arms back and forth like I was doing something wrong. I did not attempt to pass them because the Admiral was driving so erratic, I couldn’t tell which way he would turn next. Once they finally cleared the Bay I overtook them to their starboard at about 300 feet only to hear their profanities and receive the official solute of the Bonehead Navy.
Kracken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2010, 06:13 PM   #19
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,348
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 504
Thanked 461 Times in 161 Posts
Default

Considering that I have a house directly across from the Barbers Pole this definitely concerns me. I posted it for a few reasons. One of them was that I was shocked to see this issue not being discussed on the forum. It seems that nobody knew about it. We never received any word from the town regarding any such hearing. My wife stumbled on the posting on the town of Tuftonboro website. It's like this was being snuck by without notifying anyone that is directly affected. Another reason I posted it is because I wanted to hear peoples opinions. I honestly have not made up my mind as to whether or not this is a good thing or a bad thing. Sit on my dock with me one day and you will see the hundred or so reasons why I like this idea. It has to do with all of the wake damage being caused to my dock and shoreline. My boat takes a beating at the dock when Joe Q. IDIOT cruises by in his 40 foot Yacht bow up plowing along sending up a 4 foot wall of water that crashes ashore.
However, I also subscribe to the "Be Careful What You Wish For" mentality. This will increase my commute time to the mainland by as much as 5 minutes if the NWZ is stretched out as long as it is proposed. The shorter NWZ may cause more harm than good for me as people will be coming off and going up on plane right in front of my house. Not a good thing. So could be a lose, lose, lose situation for me.
The bright spot could be increased recreation and swimming in front of the house.

Interesting for sure.
hazelnut is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to hazelnut For This Useful Post:
LIforrelaxin (07-22-2010)
Old 07-22-2010, 07:36 AM   #20
Lakegeezer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,493
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 281
Thanked 467 Times in 208 Posts
Default Send them your opinion

The deadline for written responses to the state about this issue is this Friday, June 23'rd. It is unclear if email is accepted, but the department of hearings email address is safety-hearings@dos.nh.gov if you want to try that route. I did.
__________________
-lg
Lakegeezer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2010, 07:37 AM   #21
LIforrelaxin
Senior Member
 
LIforrelaxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island, not that one, the one on Winnipesaukee
Posts: 2,269
Thanks: 792
Thanked 657 Times in 356 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazelnut View Post
Considering that I have a house directly across from the Barbers Pole this definitely concerns me. I posted it for a few reasons. One of them was that I was shocked to see this issue not being discussed on the forum. It seems that nobody knew about it. We never received any word from the town regarding any such hearing. My wife stumbled on the posting on the town of Tuftonboro website. It's like this was being snuck by without notifying anyone that is directly affected. Another reason I posted it is because I wanted to hear peoples opinions. I honestly have not made up my mind as to whether or not this is a good thing or a bad thing. Sit on my dock with me one day and you will see the hundred or so reasons why I like this idea. It has to do with all of the wake damage being caused to my dock and shoreline. My boat takes a beating at the dock when Joe Q. IDIOT cruises by in his 40 foot Yacht bow up plowing along sending up a 4 foot wall of water that crashes ashore.
However, I also subscribe to the "Be Careful What You Wish For" mentality. This will increase my commute time to the mainland by as much as 5 minutes if the NWZ is stretched out as long as it is proposed. The shorter NWZ may cause more harm than good for me as people will be coming off and going up on plane right in front of my house. Not a good thing. So could be a lose, lose, lose situation for me.
The bright spot could be increased recreation and swimming in front of the house.

Interesting for sure.
Hazelnut you bring up many good points, especially where your personal situation is concerned. There is a definite double edge sword to implementing things like this that is for sure.

The wakes made by boats slowing and speeding up could be one of the considerations in making the zone so big.....

From my stand point is that once that NWZ is in place the cut between little bear and Long Island will become busier and result in another NWZ after a few years.... thus dividing lake... I am just not sure I want to see that....
__________________
Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island.....
LIforrelaxin is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to LIforrelaxin For This Useful Post:
hazelnut (07-22-2010)
Old 07-22-2010, 08:18 AM   #22
Irrigation Guy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 484
Thanks: 89
Thanked 138 Times in 72 Posts
Default

LI Relaxin makes a great point. The pass between lil bear and LI is already a busy one and I can tell you I have been, what seemed like run over, more than once going through there at close to max speed(18mph) in my pontoon boat. The reason I was going close to max speed was I try to get thorugh there as quickly as possible.

I have also been in the way in my pontoon going through the barbers pole during what seemed like rush hour(even though I was to the side as much as I dared).

I sure hope this doesn't pass.
Irrigation Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2010, 08:52 AM   #23
Just Sold
Senior Member
 
Just Sold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Suncook, NH, but at The Lake at Heart
Posts: 2,607
Thanks: 1,059
Thanked 430 Times in 207 Posts
Default

I know where Hazelnuts place is and I have friends who own close by to him. I have docked at my friends dock many times and experienced what Hazelnut describes. I am concerned with the damage to the shoreline and to the docks and docked boats caused by those that come through there leaving large wakes. But does that mean there needs to be a No Wake Zone. I am not 100% sure that a NWZ is the answer but it could be. Remember it only takes one "Captain Bonehead" to ruin it for everyone else.

This is also the location where I was passed by 3 different boats earlier this year with substantially less than the 150' safe passgae and above "no wake speed" being observed by them. It gets really crazy through there especially on weekends. "Safe Passage" may be the real problem here more than a NWZ like it is everywhere on Winni and other lakes.

I also agree with Hazelnut: "Be carefull what you wish for".
__________________
Just Sold
At the lake the stress of daily life just melts away. Pro Re Nata
Just Sold is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Just Sold For This Useful Post:
hazelnut (07-22-2010)
Old 07-22-2010, 09:24 AM   #24
Misty Blue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 650
Thanks: 115
Thanked 239 Times in 92 Posts
Default Double edge sward...

LI, you are right that this rule would encourage more traffic at Lil Bear, already a tight spot. Look what happened when they made Eagle I a NWZ. It encouraged people to take the "North passage" between Eagle and Stonedam. A very tricky piece of water to get through and if anyone else is there the 150 ft rule makes it a headway speed area.

Hazelnet, there is another angle to look at and that is $$$.

A neighbor once proplsed that Braun Bay be made a NWZ to end all of the crazyness. I explained to her that:

A: The NWZ would be in effect 24/7, 365 days a year. The problem only exists for about 100 hours a year.

B: If you make a NWZ in front of your house you can knock about $300,000 off of it's value. Most people want a place where they can ski and tube the kids without going to other areas of the Lake where it would be more inconvienent and probably more dangerous for the skiers/tubers.

Be careful of what you ask for. You just might get it.

Misty Blue
Misty Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2010, 10:12 AM   #25
Little Bear
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 467
Thanks: 71
Thanked 167 Times in 87 Posts
Default

Interestingly enough, I have an old lake chart (circa 1973) that shows the passage between Little Bear and Long Island (near FL # 10) as a no-wake zone. I wonder when and why this was ever changed? Anyone know?
Little Bear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2010, 10:39 AM   #26
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

I have mixed feelings on the no wake zone in the barber's pole. I can see where it may be warrented but again as many people pointed out there are consequences not only in that area but in others.

I would like to just bring up a discussion topic.

In my opinion I personally think the boat traffic in the barber's pole is greater then that around little bear island.. I have no data to back this up, just a personal observation.

The Hole in the Wall attracts many weekend warriors when proceeding to that part of the lake. People see the hole in the wall on many fishing shows and there is some nostalgia about passing through there.

Also the little bear passage is not as promentently known as the barbers pole. When coming from any point on the eastern part of the lake the barbers pole is logistically the only choice one has; unless they want to go out of their way up by sandy island then into moultonboro. Most people wouldn't do this unless just out for a ride. When coming from any western or central part of the lake there are 3 choices. Given 2 of the 3 are no wake zones already (hole in the wall, long island bridge) but still there are 3 ways to enter rather then only one from the eastern half of the lake.

Again just my thoughts... I wanted to see if anyone else shared these?
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2010, 11:45 AM   #27
sunset on the dock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 254
Thanks: 91
Thanked 61 Times in 41 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE View Post
I have mixed feelings on the no wake zone in the barber's pole. I can see where it may be warrented but again as many people pointed out there are consequences not only in that area but in others.

I would like to just bring up a discussion topic.

In my opinion I personally think the boat traffic in the barber's pole is greater then that around little bear island.. I have no data to back this up, just a personal observation.

The Hole in the Wall attracts many weekend warriors when proceeding to that part of the lake. People see the hole in the wall on many fishing shows and there is some nostalgia about passing through there.

Also the little bear passage is not as promentently known as the barbers pole. When coming from any point on the eastern part of the lake the barbers pole is logistically the only choice one has; unless they want to go out of their way up by sandy island then into moultonboro. Most people wouldn't do this unless just out for a ride. When coming from any western or central part of the lake there are 3 choices. Given 2 of the 3 are no wake zones already (hole in the wall, long island bridge) but still there are 3 ways to enter rather then only one from the eastern half of the lake.

Again just my thoughts... I wanted to see if anyone else shared these?
I've been through the area in question a couple of times when it was very congested and it was rather intimidating. I imagine some of the people on the islands have had big trouble with the wakes/erosion/use of their waterfront/concern for a night time strike. One could argue that, similar to Eagle/Governor's Is. NWZ which got another boating groups support, that SBONH could consider embracing this NWZ. It could say a lot, like their support of inspections, that the organization is indeed not just about speed (though an endorsement would have to come with a lot of speed given there's just 1 day left to weigh in).JMO. What do you think OCD?
sunset on the dock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2010, 11:53 AM   #28
jmen24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,139
Thanks: 223
Thanked 318 Times in 181 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunset on the dock View Post
I've been through the area in question a couple of times when it was very congested and it was rather intimidating. I imagine some of the people on the islands have had big trouble with the wakes/erosion/use of their waterfront/concern for a night time strike. One could argue that, similar to Eagle/Governor's Is. NWZ which got another boating groups support, that SBONH could consider embracing this NWZ. It could say a lot, like their support of inspections, that the organization is indeed not just about speed (though an endorsement would have to come with a lot of speed given there's just 1 day left to weigh in).JMO. What do you think OCD?

SOTD, take your agenda elsewhere.

Where's a valid reason for moderation when you need one.
jmen24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2010, 11:59 AM   #29
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

As Hazelnut pointed out this came out of no where and wasn't publized to get everyone's opinion. It seems like it was done behind the scenes to keep it quiet.

I can not speak for SBONH. A meeting would have to be held to get everyone's input. I wish this had been brought up earlier to have time to get a consensus.

As mentioned before there are a variety of problems on both sides. From what I can gather so far.

1. it would possibly increase traffic elsewhere (little bear passage) which could lead to another NWZ seperating the lake.
2. it may have a negative impact on property values
3. it may only be necessary for weekends when traffic is up.
4. it actually may increase large wakes for certain property owners because all boats would be slowing and speeding up at one particular area, rather then spread out across the pole if people are abiding by the safe passage law.
5. Depending on the size it may be a hinderance to nearby by camps who pull skiers during the week.
6. It may be safer to have one but we need to discuss and study the issue further.
7. Is the no wake zone necessary or could it be solved by enforcment of current laws?

As you can see it is very difficult to make a decision based on the discussions here. I would be in favor of pushing the vote and having a more public "Publizied" hearing where more of all those effected as well as all boaters can voice their opinions. We have to look at this from all angles, not just from a few property owners that want to decrease wakes.
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2010, 12:15 PM   #30
sunset on the dock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 254
Thanks: 91
Thanked 61 Times in 41 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmen24 View Post
SOTD, take your agenda elsewhere.

Where's a valid reason for moderation when you need one.
Geez...getting a little hot under the collar there or what. You could take a few pointers from OCD in terms of moderating your posts. I may sometimes disagree with OCD but his posts are ALWAYS civil. Or are you trying to get this thread shut down ?
sunset on the dock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2010, 12:19 PM   #31
DEJ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 329
Thanks: 242
Thanked 179 Times in 80 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunset on the dock View Post
I've been through the area in question a couple of times when it was very congested and it was rather intimidating. I imagine some of the people on the islands have had big trouble with the wakes/erosion/use of their waterfront/concern for a night time strike. One could argue that, similar to Eagle/Governor's Is. NWZ which got another boating groups support, that SBONH could consider embracing this NWZ. It could say a lot, like their support of inspections, that the organization is indeed not just about speed (though an endorsement would have to come with a lot of speed given there's just 1 day left to weigh in).JMO. What do you think OCD?
How about the group that you support SOTD, why not call out Winnfabs to also support this NWZ? Or are they just a one issue group?
DEJ is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to DEJ For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (07-22-2010)
Old 07-22-2010, 12:36 PM   #32
jmen24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,139
Thanks: 223
Thanked 318 Times in 181 Posts
Default You are correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunset on the dock View Post
Geez...getting a little hot under the collar there or what. You could take a few pointers from OCD in terms of moderating your posts. I may sometimes disagree with OCD but his posts are ALWAYS civil. Or are you trying to get this thread shut down ?
OCD, is very good at taking a baited hook, removing the barb, enjoying the snack and leaving the baiter to wonder why they didn't catch anything.

I am not so good at that, nor was I speaking for anyone other than myself.

Perhaps you should take your own advise and find some way to rise to the level of the people you call out, instead of jabbing from a dark corner hoping to score a hit.

SBONH is attempting to make a difference in the safety of Lake Winnipesaukee through education and by focusing on the real issues of concern on the lake. I applaud his efforts and those of SBONH for stepping up to the plate in the manner that they have to deal with the issues that were and are still present on the lake.
jmen24 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to jmen24 For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (07-22-2010)
Old 07-22-2010, 12:38 PM   #33
Excalibur
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Gilford,NH is where I would like to be and Southborough, MA is where I have to be
Posts: 79
Thanks: 11
Thanked 8 Times in 1 Post
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by DEJ View Post
Lakegeezer is right on the mark with his comments. No need for additional laws or restrictions since we currently have laws that address most every issue. I have been through this area when an MP boat was sitting off to the side just watching, it is amazing how many boaters all of a sudden know the laws when MP is around.
Maybe on nice sunny weekends the marine patrol should anchor a few of there craft empty in some of the bonehead zones as a deterrent

I know a lot of local towns park empty police cruisers on the side of the road with a big teddy bear in it. Its effective in keeping everyone honest.
Excalibur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2010, 12:47 PM   #34
Turtle Boy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 176
Thanks: 17
Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DEJ View Post
How about the group that you support SOTD, why not call out Winnfabs to also support this NWZ? Or are they just a one issue group?
Wow...interesting take on the subject. I would have to agree though about the one issue aspect of Winnfabs...their one issue was that a few boats were ruining it for everyone else, people were not enjoying the lake because of a selfish minorities' need for speed, to live free or die, and to have fun at every one else's expense. Many people agreed and gave their support to Winnfabs and their voices to the state legislature. I'm impressed with the number of people who had expressed their feeling that they would not return to the lake because it was out of control. Many businesses agreed, especially some of the major hospitality providers on the lake. So yes...a one issue group but in fact now that things have changed, a no issue group. Sorry to bring this to your attention but you are the one who brought up the subject, straying off the intended subject of this thread. And as pointed out above...why be so nasty?
Turtle Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2010, 12:52 PM   #35
Kracken
Senior Member
 
Kracken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Alton
Posts: 223
Thanks: 46
Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts
Default

Does NH Marine Patrol have a recommendation on this?

Many years ago there was a push to make part of Alton Bay a no wake zone. From Sandy Point all the way to the river. The petition was started by a few (no longer residents) on the east shore perpendicular to the markers off Sandy Point. Most boaters believed (and some still do) that the only safe passage is between the eastern most marker and the east shore. This created a bottleneck and boaters coming on and off plane creating large wakes and causing damage to the shoreline.

The Marine Patrol deemed a “No-Wake” zone was unnecessary. Educating boaters on the markers was the solution.
Kracken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2010, 01:01 PM   #36
DEJ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 329
Thanks: 242
Thanked 179 Times in 80 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle Boy View Post
Wow...interesting take on the subject. I would have to agree though about the one issue aspect of Winnfabs...their one issue was that a few boats were ruining it for everyone else, people were not enjoying the lake because of a selfish minorities' need for speed, to live free or die, and to have fun at every one else's expense. Many people agreed and gave their support to Winnfabs and their voices to the state legislature. I'm impressed with the number of people who had expressed their feeling that they would not return to the lake because it was out of control. Many businesses agreed, especially some of the major hospitality providers on the lake. So yes...a one issue group but in fact now that things have changed, a no issue group. Sorry to bring this to your attention but you are the one who brought up the subject, straying off the intended subject of this thread. And as pointed out above...why be so nasty?
Let me see, someone can suggest SBONH might be a one issue group, I suggest winnfabs might be a one issue group, then we get the TB response which has nothing to do with this discussion other than try to stir the pot. Now that we have that little distraction out of the way, back on topic.

I sent in my comments on this matter and hope many of you here did so also. It will be interesting to see what the outcome is.
DEJ is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to DEJ For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (07-22-2010)
Old 07-22-2010, 01:04 PM   #37
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle Boy View Post
Wow...interesting take on the subject. I would have to agree though about the one issue aspect of Winnfabs...their one issue was that a few boats were ruining it for everyone else, people were not enjoying the lake because of a selfish minorities' need for speed, to live free or die, and to have fun at every one else's expense. Many people agreed and gave their support to Winnfabs and their voices to the state legislature. I'm impressed with the number of people who had expressed their feeling that they would not return to the lake because it was out of control. Many businesses agreed, especially some of the major hospitality providers on the lake. So yes...a one issue group but in fact now that things have changed, a no issue group. Sorry to bring this to your attention but you are the one who brought up the subject, straying off the intended subject of this thread. And as pointed out above...why be so nasty?
TB... Lets not go down this path... I agree with you that the winnfabs are a "one issue" group, But lets not discuss the neauances of this. Lets just agree to disagree there and stay on the topic of the NWZ.

As for SBONH being a one issue group.. That of which we shall not discuss is put to bed so lets leave it there. Sbonh is still out trying to promote safety. We are doing this through safety rallys, publications, encouraging vessel inspections and promoting boating education courses. There are many many other issues on the lake that we have begun to work on. This NWZ needs further study before we can endorse this, one way or the other. Yet it appears we won't have time, due to the how it was done without publicity.
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?

Last edited by OCDACTIVE; 07-22-2010 at 02:13 PM.
OCDACTIVE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2010, 01:04 PM   #38
Seaplane Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 881
Thanks: 313
Thanked 493 Times in 188 Posts
Thumbs down I feel sick to my stomach

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle Boy View Post
Wow...interesting take on the subject. I would have to agree though about the one issue aspect of Winnfabs...their one issue was that a few boats were ruining it for everyone else, people were not enjoying the lake because of a selfish minorities' need for speed, to live free or die, and to have fun at every one else's expense. Many people agreed and gave their support to Winnfabs and their voices to the state legislature. I'm impressed with the number of people who had expressed their feeling that they would not return to the lake because it was out of control. Many businesses agreed, especially some of the major hospitality providers on the lake. So yes...a one issue group but in fact now that things have changed, a no issue group. Sorry to bring this to your attention but you are the one who brought up the subject, straying off the intended subject of this thread. And as pointed out above...why be so nasty?
Does anyone have a good remedy for nausea?
Seaplane Pilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2010, 01:16 PM   #39
upthesaukee
Senior Member
 
upthesaukee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Alton Bay
Posts: 4,758
Blog Entries: 2
Thanks: 1,455
Thanked 1,453 Times in 792 Posts
Default Easy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot View Post
Does anyone have a good remedy for nausea?
Easy remedy for this type of nausea: the ignore button.
__________________
I Live Here... I am always UPTHESAUKEE !!!!
upthesaukee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2010, 03:49 PM   #40
VitaBene
Senior Member
 
VitaBene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 3,122
Thanks: 1,250
Thanked 1,375 Times in 688 Posts
Default Surprised

I am also surprised that this seems to have come out of left field and that no one really has any time to do anything about it.

How do these types of things get announced. I know if my neighbor wanted to change zoning or something similar the town would post it but also inform the abutters directly. Is this the case here?

Hazelnut, I know you practically look at where the Barber's Pole used to be from your dock, did the State contact you? Just curious.
VitaBene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2010, 04:45 PM   #41
Mee-n-Mac
Senior Member
 
Mee-n-Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,943
Thanks: 23
Thanked 111 Times in 51 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VitaBene View Post
I am also surprised that this seems to have come out of left field and that no one really has any time to do anything about it.

How do these types of things get announced. I know if my neighbor wanted to change zoning or something similar the town would post it but also inform the abutters directly. Is this the case here?

Hazelnut, I know you practically look at where the Barber's Pole used to be from your dock, did the State contact you? Just curious.

All it takes is 25 people in the town (Tuftonboro in this case) to petition and voila, a hearing is held. Public notice was by newspaper. Since it's a state issue it would seem they don't bother to notify "abutters" like a town would for a variance petition.

Sometimes I wonder if we couldn't set up milk bottles* down the center of the narrower "channels" to try to keep people going opposite directions on their right side(s). Smoothly flowing traffic would cut down on the confusion, anxiety and wakes. No need for a NWZ then.



*or perhaps rock bass with lasers on their foreheads !! We could post little signs saying "Stay right ... or else", "Enforced by rock bass".
Attached Images
 
__________________
Mee'n'Mac
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity or ignorance. The latter are a lot more common than the former." - RAH
Mee-n-Mac is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Mee-n-Mac For This Useful Post:
Kracken (07-23-2010)
Old 07-23-2010, 08:12 AM   #42
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 2,148
Thanks: 191
Thanked 1,374 Times in 554 Posts
Default

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?
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 08:14 AM   #43
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAXUM View Post
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.
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 10:17 AM   #44
sunset on the dock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 254
Thanks: 91
Thanked 61 Times in 41 Posts
Default

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
sunset on the dock is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to sunset on the dock For This Useful Post:
Kracken (07-23-2010)
Old 07-23-2010, 10:24 AM   #45
DEJ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 329
Thanks: 242
Thanked 179 Times in 80 Posts
Default

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.
DEJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 11:16 AM   #46
Seaplane Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 881
Thanks: 313
Thanked 493 Times in 188 Posts
Default

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"?
Seaplane Pilot is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Seaplane Pilot For This Useful Post:
Dave R (07-23-2010), gtagrip (07-23-2010), Martha Marlee (07-26-2010), Sue Doe-Nym (07-23-2010)
Old 07-23-2010, 11:29 AM   #47
Finder
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 27
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Default

I really don't understand. Just why do you people have such a big problem with slowing down for a little while?
Finder is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Finder For This Useful Post:
Lucky1 (07-25-2010), sunset on the dock (07-23-2010)
Old 07-23-2010, 11:32 AM   #48
DEJ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 329
Thanks: 242
Thanked 179 Times in 80 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finder View Post
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?
DEJ is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to DEJ For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (07-23-2010)
Old 07-23-2010, 01:08 PM   #49
LIforrelaxin
Senior Member
 
LIforrelaxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island, not that one, the one on Winnipesaukee
Posts: 2,269
Thanks: 792
Thanked 657 Times in 356 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunset on the dock View Post
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.
__________________
Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island.....
LIforrelaxin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 01:18 PM   #50
Sue Doe-Nym
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 463
Thanks: 253
Thanked 128 Times in 77 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finder View Post
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.
Sue Doe-Nym is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Sue Doe-Nym For This Useful Post:
Mee-n-Mac (07-23-2010)
Old 07-23-2010, 01:47 PM   #51
Turtle Boy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 176
Thanks: 17
Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finder View Post
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.
Turtle Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 02:07 PM   #52
Mee-n-Mac
Senior Member
 
Mee-n-Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,943
Thanks: 23
Thanked 111 Times in 51 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle Boy View Post
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.
__________________
Mee'n'Mac
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity or ignorance. The latter are a lot more common than the former." - RAH
Mee-n-Mac is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Mee-n-Mac For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (07-23-2010), Dave R (07-23-2010), LIforrelaxin (07-23-2010), Seaplane Pilot (07-23-2010), VtSteve (07-24-2010)
Old 07-23-2010, 02:08 PM   #53
Seaplane Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 881
Thanks: 313
Thanked 493 Times in 188 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle Boy View Post
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!
Seaplane Pilot is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Seaplane Pilot For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (07-23-2010), hazelnut (07-25-2010), OCDACTIVE (07-23-2010), rockythedog (07-23-2010)
Old 07-23-2010, 04:36 PM   #54
chipj29
Senior Member
 
chipj29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bow
Posts: 1,860
Thanks: 497
Thanked 291 Times in 155 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunset on the dock View Post
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?
__________________
Getting ready for winter!
chipj29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 04:49 PM   #55
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,348
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 504
Thanked 461 Times in 161 Posts
Default

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.
hazelnut is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to hazelnut For This Useful Post:
Just Sold (07-24-2010), VtSteve (07-24-2010)
Old 07-23-2010, 07:13 PM   #56
Rattlesnake Guy
Senior Member
 
Rattlesnake Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,254
Thanks: 423
Thanked 365 Times in 174 Posts
Default

I am not certain of the markers and traffic patterns in this region but here is a scale photograph showing 300' wide boat paths.
Attached Images
 
Rattlesnake Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Rattlesnake Guy For This Useful Post:
boat_guy64 (07-23-2010), Dave R (07-23-2010)
Old 07-23-2010, 11:21 PM   #57
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,818
Thanks: 2,330
Thanked 851 Times in 593 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac View Post
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.
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2010, 07:44 AM   #58
Turtle Boy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 176
Thanks: 17
Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy View Post
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!
Turtle Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2010, 11:00 AM   #59
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,773
Thanks: 226
Thanked 633 Times in 370 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazelnut View Post
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?
Dave R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2010, 12:56 PM   #60
Turtle Boy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 176
Thanks: 17
Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts
Default

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?
Turtle Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2010, 01:52 PM   #61
Rattlesnake Guy
Senior Member
 
Rattlesnake Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,254
Thanks: 423
Thanked 365 Times in 174 Posts
Default

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.
Attached Images
 
Rattlesnake Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2010, 02:53 PM   #62
Turtle Boy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 176
Thanks: 17
Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts
Default

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).
Turtle Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2010, 07:48 PM   #63
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Seriously TB, give it a rest and stop trying to stir the pot. We have all left it alone. Why aren't you?
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2010, 08:07 PM   #64
robmac
Senior Member
 
robmac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Nashua,Meredith
Posts: 949
Thanks: 211
Thanked 106 Times in 81 Posts
Default

TB,just go back in your shell and everything will be alright. IMHO
robmac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2010, 08:53 PM   #65
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,497
Thanks: 936
Thanked 436 Times in 318 Posts
Wink With Plenty of Room to Spare....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy View Post
"...I took a ride over this morning and updated my drawing..."
You passed by my sailboat this morning...'hope my return-wave was seen.
ApS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2010, 08:29 AM   #66
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy View Post
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.
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2010, 08:32 AM   #67
ishoot308
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Gilford, NH / Welch Island
Posts: 4,317
Thanks: 1,534
Thanked 3,113 Times in 1,203 Posts
Default

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
ishoot308 is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ishoot308 For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (07-25-2010), Dave R (07-25-2010), Martha Marlee (07-26-2010), OCDACTIVE (07-25-2010)
Old 07-25-2010, 09:02 AM   #68
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,773
Thanks: 226
Thanked 633 Times in 370 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ishoot308 View Post
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.
Dave R is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dave R For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (07-25-2010), hazelnut (07-25-2010)
Old 07-25-2010, 09:44 AM   #69
ishoot308
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Gilford, NH / Welch Island
Posts: 4,317
Thanks: 1,534
Thanked 3,113 Times in 1,203 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VtSteve View Post
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
ishoot308 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2010, 03:41 PM   #70
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,348
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 504
Thanked 461 Times in 161 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE View Post
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.
hazelnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2010, 06:13 PM   #71
Rattlesnake Guy
Senior Member
 
Rattlesnake Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,254
Thanks: 423
Thanked 365 Times in 174 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second View Post
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.
Rattlesnake Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2010, 07:49 PM   #72
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hollis/Gilford
Posts: 2,688
Thanks: 33
Thanked 437 Times in 247 Posts
Default

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.
jrc is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to jrc For This Useful Post:
Martha Marlee (07-26-2010)
Old 07-27-2010, 02:07 PM   #73
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrc View Post
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.
VtSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 05:04 AM   #74
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,497
Thanks: 936
Thanked 436 Times in 318 Posts
Wink It IS the Department of Safety, but...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrc View Post
"...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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy View Post
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?
ApS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 07:53 PM   #75
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second View Post
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.
VtSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to VtSteve For This Useful Post:
brk-lnt (08-02-2010)
Old 08-02-2010, 01:20 PM   #76
Lucky1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Moultonborough and FL
Posts: 459
Thanks: 318
Thanked 123 Times in 53 Posts
Default

I hate to sound silly but what is a Winni Fab????
Lucky1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 04:11 PM   #77
Just Sold
Senior Member
 
Just Sold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Suncook, NH, but at The Lake at Heart
Posts: 2,607
Thanks: 1,059
Thanked 430 Times in 207 Posts
Default

Yesterday I was talking with my friend who is vacationing (arrived on Sat) very near the Barber Pole and they said the weekend boating traffic with its subsequent waves was a major issue to them. Their 21' boat was OK tied up in a crib style dock but the 2 jet ski's were tied outside the crib and taking a beating everytime the waves came in. From their observation they felt something needs to be done about the excessive amount of waves created in that area by boats.
Not sure I can completely agree with them that a "No-Wake Zone" is the answer as it only happens on the weekends.
__________________
Just Sold
At the lake the stress of daily life just melts away. Pro Re Nata
Just Sold is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Just Sold For This Useful Post:
hazelnut (08-03-2010)
Old 08-02-2010, 05:12 PM   #78
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hollis/Gilford
Posts: 2,688
Thanks: 33
Thanked 437 Times in 247 Posts
Default

I wonder if there will be some good rafting spots in there once the wakes are gone.

I saw some boats anchored on the Weirs side of the Governors Island bridge on Sunday in the No Wake Zone. It got me thinking that we should move, as we were anchored on the Saunder's bay side. If we move to the NWZ then it would be smoother. So a new NWZ should open up some nice smooth spots around the Barber Pole.
jrc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 05:41 PM   #79
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,773
Thanks: 226
Thanked 633 Times in 370 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucky1 View Post
I hate to sound silly but what is a Winni Fab????

Winnfabs was a group dedicated to getting a speed limit on the lake. This is their website: http://winnfabs.com/ As you can see, it has not been updated in awhile.

As far as I know, they are no longer active now that the lake "feels safe" and there are no longer any collisions, drownings or sinkings.
Dave R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 06:18 PM   #80
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,818
Thanks: 2,330
Thanked 851 Times in 593 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrc View Post
I saw some boats anchored on the Weirs side of the Governors Island bridge on Sunday in the No Wake Zone. It got me thinking that we should move, as we were anchored on the Saunder's bay side.
Sunday, about 11 AM. There was a MP RIB nestled in with all the rafters on the Saunders side. He was using the lazer on boats cruising into the bridge from Saunders Bay.

I can see his point as the boats are in a very narrow window. But doesn't a boat bow reflect the light sideways? Any how it is kind of a no brainer to be speeding on this stretch at his hour. Unless you are Cap'n Bonehead.
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 06:42 PM   #81
SBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NH fresh waters and forests
Posts: 71
Thanks: 11
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Bear View Post
.... Who dreams up these things anyway?
Notice that the initial thread says by petition. That means that we the people and you the people thought it up, found 25 others in the area to agree by signature and then sent it on to be processed by our governing bodies after a little more input in meetings from other folks who may not have thought it up or signed a petition or in many of our cases even knew about it. This is the way laws are made. My civics is very rough but I think that is the general procedure.

I din't do it..did you?
SBC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 07:13 PM   #82
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hollis/Gilford
Posts: 2,688
Thanks: 33
Thanked 437 Times in 247 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroadHopper View Post
Sunday, about 11 AM. There was a MP RIB nestled in with all the rafters on the Saunders side. He was using the lazer on boats cruising into the bridge from Saunders Bay.

I can see his point as the boats are in a very narrow window. But doesn't a boat bow reflect the light sideways? Any how it is kind of a no brainer to be speeding on this stretch at his hour. Unless you are Cap'n Bonehead.
I saw him there and couldn't figure out what he was doing. When he got there there wasn't any rafts, or many boats at all, so he wasn't enforcing the NRZ. If he looked under the bridge he could enforce the NWZ on the Weirs side. Looking towards Saunders, he could enforce 150' rule regarding the bridge or some boats, but by then you would see him.

I guess you saw a lazer to catch boats exceeding 45 MPH as they approach the bridge and a bunch of anchored boats. Anyone doing that would be bonehead.
jrc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 09:07 PM   #83
Turtle Boy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 176
Thanks: 17
Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave R View Post
Winnfabs was a group dedicated to getting a speed limit on the lake. This is their website: http://winnfabs.com/ As you can see, it has not been updated in awhile.

As far as I know, they are no longer active now that the lake "feels safe" and there are no longer any collisions, drownings or sinkings.
And what about SBONH? Check out their website at http://www.sbonh.org

Legislative Update

CALL TO ACTION!!


The House and Transportation Committee will be hearing SB464 on WEDNESDAY APRIL 7th at 9:30 AM in the LEGISLATIVE OFFICE BUILDING in Concord. It is imperative that we have a tremendous turnout to show we are the majority of boaters who are not in favor of permanent speed limits without the promised two year study.

...............................

Oh yeah. They're the majority. 10 to 1 emails in favor of a SL. Four times as many signatures as SBONH. Bipartisan overwhealming majority votes in the House and Senate pro SL. Enough said.
Turtle Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 09:12 PM   #84
Little Bear
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 467
Thanks: 71
Thanked 167 Times in 87 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SBC View Post
Notice that the initial thread says by petition. That means that we the people and you the people thought it up, found 25 others in the area to agree by signature and then sent it on to be processed by our governing bodies after a little more input in meetings from other folks who may not have thought it up or signed a petition or in many of our cases even knew about it. This is the way laws are made. My civics is very rough but I think that is the general procedure.

I din't do it..did you?
Nope, not me. We have enough rules to last a lifetime. We don't need any more, thank you.
Little Bear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 06:57 AM   #85
DEJ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 329
Thanks: 242
Thanked 179 Times in 80 Posts
Default

TB, I believe the question Lucky1 asked was about winn fabs, nothing was asked about Safe Boaters of New Hampshire. Why the anger towards them? If you could only channel your anger towards the real boating issues on the lake like Safe Boaters is doing it would be a much safer place.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle Boy View Post
And what about SBONH? Check out their website at http://www.sbonh.org

Legislative Update

CALL TO ACTION!!


The House and Transportation Committee will be hearing SB464 on WEDNESDAY APRIL 7th at 9:30 AM in the LEGISLATIVE OFFICE BUILDING in Concord. It is imperative that we have a tremendous turnout to show we are the majority of boaters who are not in favor of permanent speed limits without the promised two year study.

...............................

Oh yeah. They're the majority. 10 to 1 emails in favor of a SL. Four times as many signatures as SBONH. Bipartisan overwhealming majority votes in the House and Senate pro SL. Enough said.
DEJ is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DEJ For This Useful Post:
brk-lnt (08-03-2010), VitaBene (08-03-2010), VtSteve (08-03-2010)
Old 08-03-2010, 07:11 AM   #86
VitaBene
Senior Member
 
VitaBene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 3,122
Thanks: 1,250
Thanked 1,375 Times in 688 Posts
Default Thank you

[QUOTE=Turtle Boy;135104]And what about SBONH? Check out their website at http://www.sbonh.org /QUOTE]

TB, Thanks for posting the link!
VitaBene is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to VitaBene For This Useful Post:
brk-lnt (08-03-2010)
Old 08-03-2010, 07:13 AM   #87
Turtle Boy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 176
Thanks: 17
Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DEJ View Post
TB, I believe the question Lucky1 asked was about winn fabs, nothing was asked about Safe Boaters of New Hampshire. Why the anger towards them? If you could only channel your anger towards the real boating issues on the lake like Safe Boaters is doing it would be a much safer place.
My angst was directed at DaveR's rather arrogant and sarcastic statement:
"As far as I know, they are no longer active now that the lake "feels safe" and there are no longer any collisions, drownings or sinkings"

Though I do realize he was just trying to stir the pot.
Turtle Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 08:33 AM   #88
Gavia immer
Senior Member
 
Gavia immer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 193
Thanks: 21
Thanked 19 Times in 11 Posts
Exclamation from around here, NOT!

[QUOTE=VitaBene;135126]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle Boy View Post
And what about SBONH? Check out their website at http://www.sbonh.org /QUOTE]

TB, Thanks for posting the link!
Are ALL of the community-organizers in SBONH, carpetbaggers?
http://www.sbonh.org/update.php
Gavia immer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 08:45 AM   #89
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

[QUOTE=Gavia immer;135138]
Quote:
Originally Posted by VitaBene View Post
Are ALL of the community-organizers in SBONH, carpetbaggers?
http://www.sbonh.org/update.php
I find it amusing that the only way you feel you can smear the orgainzation is to find the only tab that has not been updated on the entire site.

You seem to have conveniently left out the vessel inspection schedule, the rally pictures from this summer, the highly successful relationship between the power squadron and SBONH.

As always "misdirection" is used by the group in question. Notice how SBONH was brought into the conversation where the question was directed at a different group all together.

SBONH continues to work with the power squadron, clubs, organization, the legislation, marine patrol and candidates for the legislature to promote safety and effective legislation.

We have had more activities this summer then one can count. What has the other group done since their one issue agenda has passed??? Its time you post facts before trying to smear a well run and well intentioned organization.

I have changed the Legislative page to make you feel better. I was simply waiting for the new session as well as performing multiple changes at once rather then piece-mail.

Also I don't see why SBONH was even brought up in this discussion. The question was directed soley at a different group. Why feel the need to include an organization that is currently working to improve safety? Our membership has such a variety of boats, Pontoon boats, fishing boats, bow riders, Sea Doos etc... And at last count I believe we only have 3 captains that own boats that you would classify as GFBL boats, so please again take your misdirection elsewhere.
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to OCDACTIVE For This Useful Post:
hazelnut (08-03-2010), jmen24 (08-03-2010), Ryan (08-03-2010), Seaplane Pilot (08-03-2010), VitaBene (08-03-2010), VtSteve (08-03-2010)
Old 08-03-2010, 08:58 AM   #90
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hollis/Gilford
Posts: 2,688
Thanks: 33
Thanked 437 Times in 247 Posts
Default

[QUOTE=Gavia immer;135138]
Quote:
Originally Posted by VitaBene View Post
Are ALL of the community-organizers in SBONH, carpetbaggers?
http://www.sbonh.org/update.php
Looks like they all have NH in their address. The lake belongs to all the citizens of NH.

Besides I thought when someone wanted to disparage, belittle or denigrate someone else based solely on geography, the term flatlander was used.
jrc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 09:01 AM   #91
Turtle Boy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 176
Thanks: 17
Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave R View Post
Winnfabs was a group dedicated to getting a speed limit on the lake. This is their website: http://winnfabs.com/ As you can see, it has not been updated in awhile.

As far as I know, they are no longer active now that the lake "feels safe" and there are no longer any collisions, drownings or sinkings.
SO are the GFBL's saying it's OK to make disparaging remarks about the WinnFabs site but when someone answers back that the SBONH site needs updating as well then it's not? A bit of a double standard here.
Turtle Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 09:04 AM   #92
VitaBene
Senior Member
 
VitaBene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 3,122
Thanks: 1,250
Thanked 1,375 Times in 688 Posts
Default Ok

[QUOTE=Gavia immer;135138]
Quote:
Originally Posted by VitaBene View Post
Are ALL of the community-organizers in SBONH, carpetbaggers?
http://www.sbonh.org/update.php
Do you mean are we all non-natives of the lakes region or the true definition (Yankees who moved south after the Civil war)?

I am not native to NH but own 2 houses in Moultonborough, one my primary residence, the other being our vacation house. My wife and I made the decision to raise our family in the Lakes Region. My 2 kids go to Moultonborough Academy. I formed a business in Moultonborough. I volunteer in Moultonborough.

There are numerous members of SBONH who are natives, but frankly I have no idea what difference it makes where someone is from or where they live as long as they want to make our lake safer!

So Gavia, what is your background? Like I said it does not matter, so if you want to join us...
VitaBene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 09:34 AM   #93
Just Sold
Senior Member
 
Just Sold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Suncook, NH, but at The Lake at Heart
Posts: 2,607
Thanks: 1,059
Thanked 430 Times in 207 Posts
Unhappy OK Lets Get Back on Topic

This thread has gone off topic.

It is about a proposed no-wake zone near the Barbers Pole and not about any organizations or associations and what they have or have not done or etc. So please take this off topic discussion elswhere.

OK - I will get off my soap box now.
__________________
Just Sold
At the lake the stress of daily life just melts away. Pro Re Nata
Just Sold is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Just Sold For This Useful Post:
Sunbeam lodge (08-10-2010), VtSteve (08-03-2010), webmaster (08-03-2010)
Old 08-03-2010, 12:29 PM   #94
Irrigation Guy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 484
Thanks: 89
Thanked 138 Times in 72 Posts
Default

No reports from the hearing?
Irrigation Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 12:41 PM   #95
brk-lnt
Senior Member
 
brk-lnt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Down Shores
Posts: 1,820
Thanks: 492
Thanked 527 Times in 302 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle Boy View Post
SO are the GFBL's saying it's OK to make disparaging remarks about the WinnFabs site but when someone answers back that the SBONH site needs updating as well then it's not? A bit of a double standard here.
Maybe just cut to the chase... What is Winnfabs doing these days? What have they done THIS SEASON to increase the overall safety, education, and awareness on the lake? It's seems that they've been rather dormant.

If you're a fan or a member of Winnfabs, then please post some pertinent info regarding the organization. If the best you can do is more misdirection and non-specific ranting, you might as well save the keystrokes because you're not fooling anyone.
__________________
[insert witty phrase here]
brk-lnt is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to brk-lnt For This Useful Post:
Seaplane Pilot (08-03-2010)
Old 08-03-2010, 01:10 PM   #96
Turtle Boy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 176
Thanks: 17
Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brk-lnt View Post
Maybe just cut to the chase... What is Winnfabs doing these days? What have they done THIS SEASON to increase the overall safety, education, and awareness on the lake? It's seems that they've been rather dormant.

If you're a fan or a member of Winnfabs, then please post some pertinent info regarding the organization. If the best you can do is more misdirection and non-specific ranting, you might as well save the keystrokes because you're not fooling anyone.
Since you asked...Winnfabs was established to establish a speed limit for the lake in response to concerns of the economic health, equal access, safety, and noise issues on the lake. This mission was achieved when the SL passed. Many people felt a speed limit was important as seen in the 10:1 emails/letters sent in favor of SL's, 4:1 petition signatures in favor of a SL (and these were hard copy in state signatures, not online one's from all over the country/world), a NH poll showing a majority of NH citizens favored a SL, and the fact that there was an overwhelming bipartisan support from both houses in Concord. It makes this Winnfabs fan laugh when the anti SL crowd on this forum keeps referring to themselves as the majority.
Turtle Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Turtle Boy For This Useful Post:
sunset on the dock (08-03-2010)
Old 08-03-2010, 01:25 PM   #97
colt17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hollis NH/Laconia
Posts: 132
Thanks: 62
Thanked 17 Times in 12 Posts
Default

we have been looking at camps on Cow and this will be a huge factor if we buy or look at other islands. would love to hear the out come??
colt17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 01:26 PM   #98
Ryan
Senior Member
 
Ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mass/Gilford
Posts: 247
Thanks: 216
Thanked 70 Times in 33 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle Boy View Post
And what about SBONH? Check out their website at http://www.sbonh.org
For once, I agree w TB. People interested in safety without fluff should really check out their website.
__________________
Please do not feel the trolls.
Ryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 01:43 PM   #99
winni83
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 214
Thanks: 15
Thanked 87 Times in 53 Posts
Default WinnFabs Purpose

Perhaps WinnFabs did not accurately state its corporate purpose when it filed Articles of Agreement with the NH Secretary of State. The first stated purpose is "To educate the public on boating safety".
Attached Images
File Type: pdf WinnFabs Art. of Agr..pdf (56.5 KB, 205 views)
winni83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 01:49 PM   #100
Turtle Boy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 176
Thanks: 17
Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by winni83 View Post
Perhaps WinnFabs did not accurately state its corporate purpose when it filed Articles of Agreement with the NH Secretary of State. The first stated purpose is "To educate the public on boating safety".
Check out their web site under..."why a speed limit?"
Turtle Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 0.32085 seconds