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 08-09-2010, 06:51 PM   #1
MRAB2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default No Wake at the Barbers Pole...???

I heard today that there is now a no wake zone though the Barber's Pole... What's up with that -How did that get passed so fast??? It seemed just last month there was light discussion now it's official???... Can anyone confirm?? I hope this is just a rumor that I am not spreading
MRAB2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2010, 05:01 AM   #2
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 Another thread has the info

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

Please see this thread, you will have to pick through some unrelated shrapnel but the info is there. It was approved and it is pretty large.
VitaBene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2010, 07:26 AM   #3
chipj29
Senior Member
 
chipj29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bow
Posts: 1,859
Thanks: 497
Thanked 290 Times in 154 Posts
Default

It was discussed at length in this thread:
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ad.php?t=10413
__________________
Getting ready for winter!
chipj29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2010, 09:22 AM   #4
topwater
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 302
Thanks: 85
Thanked 116 Times in 48 Posts
Default

What a SAD state of affairs this Lake has turned into. Just a shame!! I see it going down and getting worse every single year, one way or the other. It is truely a shame what the people are doing to this, Once upon a time Great lake! Trying to make it a privatized personal pond is not the way to go.
topwater is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to topwater For This Useful Post:
Dblblkdiam (08-10-2010), gtagrip (08-10-2010), LakeSnake (08-10-2010), NoBozo (08-10-2010), Resident 2B (08-18-2010), TiltonBB (08-19-2010), VtSteve (08-10-2010), winterharbor59 (07-23-2018)
Old 08-10-2010, 09:27 AM   #5
MJM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 262
Thanks: 0
Thanked 23 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Is the Barber Pole even there anymore? I went by where I thought it was, and didn't see it...
MJM is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 08-10-2010, 10:20 AM   #6
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,813
Thanks: 2,326
Thanked 849 Times in 591 Posts
Default Yesterday

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

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

I had an infraction in NC last fall. In NC was unaware I was in a right turn only lane and did not turn right. The infraction appeared on my driver's record. I found out last spring when I got pulled over in Belmont NH because I had a rear tail light out. Instead of a defective tag, the officer fined me $62. The town must be really hurting!
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2010, 10:24 AM   #7
DEJ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 328
Thanks: 242
Thanked 179 Times in 80 Posts
Default Appeal?

Quote:
Originally Posted by topwater View Post
What a SAD state of affairs this Lake has turned into. Just a shame!! I see it going down and getting worse every single year, one way or the other. It is truely a shame what the people are doing to this, Once upon a time Great lake! Trying to make it a privatized personal pond is not the way to go.
The following web site http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/h...s/aboutus.html
says the following about hearings: "the results are subject to appeal"

So if anyone is inclined I guess an appeal is allowed the way I read it.
DEJ is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DEJ For This Useful Post:
topwater (08-11-2010), VtSteve (08-10-2010)
Old 08-10-2010, 10:43 AM   #8
NoRegrets
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hudson - NH
Posts: 408
Thanks: 233
Thanked 212 Times in 88 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by topwater View Post
What a SAD state of affairs this Lake has turned into. Just a shame!! I see it going down and getting worse every single year, one way or the other. It is truely a shame what the people are doing to this, Once upon a time Great lake! Trying to make it a privatized personal pond is not the way to go.
Well said! I had a discussion last week with a globally experienced boater (owns property in Central Am. and sailed to places I can not pronounce or spell). He was recently boating somewhere off Massachusetts and he commented on how disappointing it is to have so many laws and restrictions on such a beautiful lake. The rules are crowding out common sense and boating etiquette. Now the flood gates are open to more and more limits. We are going for the technicality of law instead of intent so this process will continue until every square inch of the resource is requlated by constrictive rules. I will not dwell on or forcast the future but feel for the next generation that will not realize the open enjoyment that we have had in our lifetime.

I still plan to enjoy my weekends on Winnipesaukee and my weeks on this Forum!!!!
NoRegrets is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to NoRegrets For This Useful Post:
VtSteve (08-10-2010)
Old 08-10-2010, 11:11 AM   #9
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,767
Thanks: 225
Thanked 628 Times in 368 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DEJ View Post
The following web site http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/h...s/aboutus.html
says the following about hearings: "the results are subject to appeal"

So if anyone is inclined I guess an appeal is allowed the way I read it.
I imagine the folks that live by the Hole in the Wall and the gap between Little Bear and Long Island will be appealing...

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

Wonder how long it'll take milfoil to get a stronghold in the shallow parts of the NWZ once the wakes stop? I'm pretty sure milfoil does not tolerate boat wakes very well.
Dave R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2010, 11:26 AM   #10
neckdweller
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Moultonborough & Southern NH
Posts: 119
Thanks: 6
Thanked 24 Times in 14 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJM View Post
Is the Barber Pole even there anymore? I went by where I thought it was, and didn't see it...
I didn't go by this past weekend, but it wasn't there the past few weeks. I think it was last year that it was taken down for painting - it shouldn't need to be prettied up again so soon.
neckdweller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2010, 11:29 AM   #11
pm203
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 224
Thanks: 39
Thanked 84 Times in 45 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroadHopper View Post
Went through the Barber Pole area. No signs yet. I wonder if you have to wait til they post the signs or there is going to be a sneak attack!

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

I had an infraction in NC last fall. In NC was unaware I was in a right turn only lane and did not turn right. The infraction appeared on my driver's record. I found out last spring when I got pulled over in Belmont NH because I had a rear tail light out. Instead of a defective tag, the officer fined me $62. The town must be really hurting!
Any infractions that you receive while boating can be fought so that not to appear on your driving record.
pm203 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2010, 04:15 PM   #12
HUH
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 230
Thanks: 21
Thanked 14 Times in 8 Posts
Default Whats the rush

Dont understand why anyone would complain about this.. It gets a little tight in there at times.. This lake needs more no wake areas ..
HUH is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to HUH For This Useful Post:
sunset on the dock (08-17-2010)
Old 08-17-2010, 07:43 AM   #13
cowisl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cow Island
Posts: 164
Thanks: 6
Thanked 19 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HUH View Post
Dont understand why anyone would complain about this.. It gets a little tight in there at times.. This lake needs more no wake areas ..
I live right around the corner from the barbers pole. My family also has a place on the mainland next to the pole. If people followed the current rules (150') there would be no need for the no wake zone. Its amazing to me that people keep wanting more and more rules.

Last edited by cowisl; 08-17-2010 at 09:49 AM.
cowisl is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to cowisl For This Useful Post:
colt17 (08-18-2010), DEJ (08-17-2010), Martha Marlee (08-17-2010), Resident 2B (08-18-2010), TiltonBB (08-19-2010)
Old 08-17-2010, 09:51 AM   #14
4Fun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 283
Thanks: 1
Thanked 65 Times in 38 Posts
Default

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

I still plan to enjoy my weekends on Winnipesaukee and my weeks on this Forum!!!!
I still say everyone who thinks Winni is "Scary" should spend and afternoon ANYWHERE else on the water.

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

We all waved to each other and had a good sail....
4Fun is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to 4Fun For This Useful Post:
XCR-700 (08-21-2010)
Old 08-17-2010, 09:58 AM   #15
jmen24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,139
Thanks: 223
Thanked 318 Times in 181 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by neckdweller View Post
I didn't go by this past weekend, but it wasn't there the past few weeks. I think it was last year that it was taken down for painting - it shouldn't need to be prettied up again so soon.
Its all these new LOW VoC paints that we are required to use in NH. They just don't last as long.
jmen24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2010, 12:47 PM   #16
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 HUH View Post
Dont understand why anyone would complain about this.. It gets a little tight in there at times.. This lake needs more no wake areas ..
I don't understand the complaints either. Some of the best times on my boat are at no wake speeds....sight seeing, conversing, etc. I can't understand the mentality where people feel a boat has only 2 speeds...stop and full throttle. And so many people go past the 2 little islands just 150' from shore...I felt sorry for the people on shore.
sunset on the dock is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to sunset on the dock For This Useful Post:
ApS (08-24-2010)
Old 08-18-2010, 07:12 AM   #17
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 sunset on the dock View Post
I don't understand the complaints either. Some of the best times on my boat are at no wake speeds....sight seeing, conversing, etc. I can't understand the mentality where people feel a boat has only 2 speeds...stop and full throttle. And so many people go past the 2 little islands just 150' from shore...I felt sorry for the people on shore.
Apparently, there's a lot to sort out in that area SOTD. I had never boated there much, so I've pretty much lost track of the layout in my mind. I'll have to defer to people that live and boat in that area, they seem to know it best. Some property owners there have mixed feelings, so I gather it's mostly a weekend thing, and mostly Saturdays at that. It's too bad so many boaters have built up an arrogance that outweighs whatever common sense and courtesy they ever had

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

If you look at a previous post, perhaps in the other thread, you'll see what happened when a MP was present in the area. Just as on the roadways, people seem to immediately recall the laws and common courtesy when a LEO is around watching. This indicates to me that the problems in areas like these are caused by attitude, lack of common courtesy, and an arrogance that belies the freedom of the waterways. Areas where people complain about cars running lights and/or stop signs, are usually patrolled more often, LEO's on the lookout for offenders. They step up enforcement in trouble spots, they don't make the entire area a 25 mph school zone. Common sense.
VtSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2010, 08:53 AM   #18
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 read many posts on this issue. I also have experienced some tight situations in the pole.

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

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

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

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

I think this is a very tough issue and I personally have mixed feelings on this for I have seen it from both sides. But lets keep into context exactly what that problem is Large wakes nothing more.
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to OCDACTIVE For This Useful Post:
hazelnut (08-18-2010), Just Sold (08-18-2010), VtSteve (08-18-2010)
Old 08-18-2010, 10:49 AM   #19
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunset on the dock View Post
I don't understand the complaints either. Some of the best times on my boat are at no wake speeds....sight seeing, conversing, etc. I can't understand the mentality where people feel a boat has only 2 speeds...stop and full throttle. And so many people go past the 2 little islands just 150' from shore...I felt sorry for the people on shore.
We spend at least half of our boating time running just in gear and doing as you noted- sightseeing, talking, etc.

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

That is going to be a long NWZ and will likely cause others to be added or extended.
VitaBene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2010, 11:14 AM   #20
Formula
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 182
Thanks: 12
Thanked 27 Times in 15 Posts
Default where will the boats go next

As mentioned above this very long NWZ will force more and more boats around the NWZ and most likely will add more traffic between Little bear and Long Island which is, I believe a much tighter spot than the Barber's pole area.
Formula is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2010, 12:01 PM   #21
Seaplane Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 881
Thanks: 313
Thanked 493 Times in 188 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunset on the dock View Post
I don't understand the complaints either. Some of the best times on my boat are at no wake speeds....sight seeing, conversing, etc. I can't understand the mentality where people feel a boat has only 2 speeds...stop and full throttle. And so many people go past the 2 little islands just 150' from shore...I felt sorry for the people on shore.
You know what - you have every right to go no wake speed whenever and where ever you want. Nobody is arguing that point. However, not everyone feels the same as you do. Personally, I like about 2/3 throttle and am a safe captain at any speed.
Seaplane Pilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2010, 12:20 PM   #22
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 VitaBene View Post

That is going to be a long NWZ and will likely cause others to be added or extended.
This is not necessarily a bad thing. There are many tight areas where shore erosion and damage to boats is not the only issue. And as I said earlier, boats screaming by the 2 little islands (often faster than 45 MPH by their own admission on this forum) are a big problem.
Yes, other NWZ's may be added or extended. People who might use these tight areas but do not reside there will complain loudly but it's likely that most residents who are most affected will give it a thumbs up. I suspect this definitely is the case with those 2 little islands(Little Birch and Squirrell) where I noticed boats, rafts, docks, and swimmers all sharing this tight channel.
sunset on the dock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2010, 06:14 PM   #23
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 2,147
Thanks: 191
Thanked 1,374 Times in 554 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE View Post
I have read many posts on this issue. I also have experienced some tight situations in the pole.

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

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

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

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

I think this is a very tough issue and I personally have mixed feelings on this for I have seen it from both sides. But lets keep into context exactly what that problem is Large wakes nothing more.
I agree, if the problem in fact is large wakes there is only so much that can be done short of using a NWZ to combat it, but to what end? If the end result is that traffic gets redirected to another area then the problem exists there too. So two thoughts come to mind, not that I like either one of them, but maybe worth while to consider.

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

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

Of the two I like the first, both I think would be a nightmare to enforce. Dunno - no good answer as of yet, but throwing ideas around is how problems get solved in unique ways. I'd like to think some sort of reasonable solution could be devised, a full time NWZ in that area just seems really overkill and it's creation may have adverse negative affects if instituted as is.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MAXUM For This Useful Post:
DEJ (08-18-2010), OCDACTIVE (08-18-2010)
Old 08-18-2010, 06:35 PM   #24
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 sunset on the dock View Post
And as I said earlier, boats screaming by the 2 little islands (often faster than 45 MPH by their own admission on this forum) are a big problem.
Sunset, we have all appreciated your responses, but I have read back on every post, and other then you (not even the land owners who started this thread) have ever mentioned that boats going over 45 is an issue. Using language like screaming, faster then 45 mph is only stirring the pot.

Can we just agree that the safe passage rule needs to be enforced and that wakes are an issue?
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to OCDACTIVE For This Useful Post:
colt17 (08-19-2010), eillac@dow (08-18-2010), hazelnut (08-18-2010), Just Sold (08-19-2010), VtSteve (08-18-2010)
Old 08-18-2010, 06:42 PM   #25
DEJ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 328
Thanks: 242
Thanked 179 Times in 80 Posts
Default

Boats running on the pad through this area leave little to no wake. I am concerned that this proposed no wake area will actually cause more damage. As we all know many boaters do not know what no wake speed is. I can see this area quite possibly becoming a "plow fest" as those who do not understand what no wake really is plow through the area. As the old saying goes "be careful what you wish for."
DEJ is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to DEJ For This Useful Post:
Jonas Pilot (08-19-2010)
Old 08-18-2010, 07:07 PM   #26
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 2,147
Thanks: 191
Thanked 1,374 Times in 554 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DEJ View Post
Boats running on the pad through this area leave little to no wake. I am concerned that this proposed no wake area will actually cause more damage. As we all know many boaters do not know what no wake speed is. I can see this area quite possibly becoming a "plow fest" as those who do not understand what no wake really is plow through the area. As the old saying goes "be careful what you wish for."
You know that's a great point due to the proposed length of this area to pass through. People are going to get impatient going through such a long stretch at a snail's pace and surely will tend to be water plowers.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2010, 07:08 PM   #27
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
Unhappy No mushing !

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunset on the dock View Post
I don't understand the complaints either. Some of the best times on my boat are at no wake speeds....sight seeing, conversing, etc. I can't understand the mentality where people feel a boat has only 2 speeds...stop and full throttle. And so many people go past the 2 little islands just 150' from shore...I felt sorry for the people on shore.
We're it to be stop (or NWS) and "full throttle" I suspect there wouldn't be as much complaining. From what I've heard here, the issue is wake size and I'll guess it's mostly due to the same thing I see off my dock. The restriction in channel width plus people's intransigence to line up sticks a bunch'o'boats all in the same place at the same time. When that happens you get the mushers out in force. NWS is too slow for them and on plane is too fast, so they settle at the inbetween speed where no boat should operate. 2 speeds would be better than the infinitely variable speeds some people choose to use.
__________________
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 08-18-2010, 07:20 PM   #28
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
Sunset, we have all appreciated your responses, but I have read back on every post, and other then you (not even the land owners who started this thread) have ever mentioned that boats going over 45 is an issue. Using language like screaming, faster then 45 mph is only stirring the pot.

Can we just agree that the safe passage rule needs to be enforced and that wakes are an issue?
I live here on the Barbers Pole and I can tell you our biggest issue is the large cruiser wakes and the boats plowing along. In almost 10 years here I can count on on hand how many times I've seen a boat go by here above the current law. The issue as has been discussed occurs during these times:

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

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

The biggest problem stems from the random joker in the 40 footer plowing along. I'll try and catch a video and post it one of these days.
hazelnut is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to hazelnut For This Useful Post:
colt17 (08-19-2010), Martha Marlee (08-19-2010), OCDACTIVE (08-19-2010)
Old 08-18-2010, 08:01 PM   #29
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

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

Everyone should thank the people that are having rational discourse on this subject. And for the record, like many, I haven't formed a full opinion on this particular NWZ myself.
VtSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2010, 10:23 PM   #30
Baja Guy
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Nashua, NH
Posts: 45
Thanks: 3
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Default

I travel through Barber Pole every so often and hardly ever come upon someone who observes the 150' rule on weekends. People just bomb through on plane at under 150'. It really annoys me because I slow down. Now I understand that it's tough to get a big tub back to speed but if that's what you got that's how it goes. I may be the only person who doesn't mind slowing down because I enjoy the sensation of acceleration. It's particularly enjoyable in my boat because it's a little under propped so it has great pickup.
End of ramble...
Another poster had the thought of floating some ideas. What about a decoy boat? I believe the MP has some old boats. If they stick one in a high violation area like that it could deter the weekend warriors. Might work, and wouldn't cost much. Also they could post some very clear signs leading into the area that it is being heavily monitored.
I wouldn't be unhappy if SBONH got involved with 150 foot rule reminder signs at ramps, bridges, gas docks and the like. Maybe, maybe, maybe. I just wish I had more weekdays to use my boat, I don't see too many problems then.
Pete
__________________
1989 Baja Sunsport 196, Mercruiser 5.7, For Sale
1987 Formula 223 LS with 1997 350 Mag
Baja Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2010, 09:58 AM   #31
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
Sunset, we have all appreciated your responses, but I have read back on every post, and other then you (not even the land owners who started this thread) have ever mentioned that boats going over 45 is an issue. Using language like screaming, faster then 45 mph is only stirring the pot.

Can we just agree that the safe passage rule needs to be enforced and that wakes are an issue?
I was referring to this forum, not this thread. And as I said, wakes and erosion are not the only issue. Safety AND noise are part of the problem. Some have argued that noise is not a good reason for a NWZ but some of the loud boats that scream by the 2 little islands just 150' away...well...as was said earlier, if you can't get Al Capone on murder charges, then at least get him on tax fraud.
sunset on the dock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2010, 11:14 AM   #32
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 sunset on the dock View Post
I was referring to this forum, not this thread. And as I said, wakes and erosion are not the only issue. Safety AND noise are part of the problem. Some have argued that noise is not a good reason for a NWZ but some of the loud boats that scream by the 2 little islands just 150' away...well...as was said earlier, if you can't get Al Capone on murder charges, then at least get him on tax fraud.
Well in the future I think when we are trying to hash out the issues of the NWZ in the barbers pole we should focus on the actual thread, not the entire forum and remarks from others that have no bearing on the discussion at hand and made in the context of another discussion all together.

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

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

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

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

Last edited by OCDACTIVE; 08-19-2010 at 12:58 PM. Reason: spelling / grammer
OCDACTIVE is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to OCDACTIVE For This Useful Post:
colt17 (08-19-2010), cowisl (08-19-2010), DEJ (08-19-2010), hazelnut (08-19-2010), Irrigation Guy (08-19-2010), ishoot308 (08-19-2010), Just Sold (08-19-2010), Ryan (08-19-2010), Sue Doe-Nym (08-19-2010), VtSteve (08-19-2010)
Old 08-19-2010, 12:20 PM   #33
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Extremes indeed.

Thanks once again OCD, for keeping this thread on topic

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

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
VtSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2010, 12:33 PM   #34
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
Well in the future I think when we are trying to hash out the issues of the NWZ in the barbers pole we should focus on the actual thread, not the entire forum and remarks from others that have no bearing on the discussion at hand and made in the context of another discussion all together.
Of course remarks from other parts of the forum are relevant and have bearing on the issue at hand, as are remarks from other forums where people speak of breaking the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE View Post
After reading the last thread and this one, especially from first hand accounts of those who live in the pole, their contention with the issue of perhaps needing a NWZ is "ONLY" wakes. At no point did Safety AND Noise come up other then by you. So again lets take a step back and address the specific question of why has this been requested by land owners that petitioned for the NWZ in the first place.
Safety and noise are an issue for the people on these 2 small islands as well as in other areas of the Barber's Pole. It was one of the reasons behind the movement for a NWZ. I have visited folks in this area...it is a major reason!
sunset on the dock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2010, 01:01 PM   #35
Turtle Boy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 176
Thanks: 17
Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE View Post
Well in the future I think when we are trying to hash out the issues of the NWZ in the barbers pole we should focus on the actual thread, not the entire forum and remarks from others that have no bearing on the discussion at hand and made in the context of another discussion all together.
No bearing on the discussion? Of course other threads are relevant. You yourself bragged last year of "almost doubling the limit". No wonder the poor folks along the Barber Pole petitioned for a NWZ. Not relevant is different from wishing it were not relevant.
Turtle Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2010, 03:07 PM   #36
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

Thank you VTsteve... Good Call

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok I'm jumping off my soap box..

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


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

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

Last edited by OCDACTIVE; 08-26-2010 at 03:20 PM.
OCDACTIVE is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to OCDACTIVE For This Useful Post:
DEJ (08-19-2010), hazelnut (08-19-2010), Just Sold (08-19-2010), VtSteve (08-19-2010)
Old 08-19-2010, 04:38 PM   #37
DEJ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 328
Thanks: 242
Thanked 179 Times in 80 Posts
Default

Thanks SOTD, this info could be very usefull for anyone who is considering an appeal.
DEJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2010, 05:29 PM   #38
Dhuberty24
Senior Member
 
Dhuberty24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hooksett,NH
Posts: 82
Thanks: 11
Thanked 32 Times in 19 Posts
Default

I live right outside the barbers pole, I will agree that big boat wakes suck. The biggest problem is the people who are going headway speed in the middle of the channel. They make it so there is no way around but to slow down and slowly pass them, causing a big wake.
I for one always go through the hole in the wall, I usually just idle down there, waiting for the boat to warm up.
One thing I can tell you because I live there is there is definitely no noise problem. I know allot of people on cow island and I have never heard any body ever complain about noise.
Dhuberty24 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Dhuberty24 For This Useful Post:
DEJ (08-19-2010), Just Sold (08-19-2010), Rose (08-20-2010)
Old 08-19-2010, 06:05 PM   #39
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

SOTD,

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

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

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

The big problem is and has been for the past almost 10 years, big wakes. Boats do not "scream by (the area)" Quite the contrary many boats do a good job and have done a good job for several years, maintaining safe speeds through the area. The loudest boat I heard this week, it made me look out the window it was so loud, was an antique CrissCraft. I smiled and laughed and wondered what some on the forum would have said to me if they were standing inside my house with me when it went by.
hazelnut is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to hazelnut For This Useful Post:
VtSteve (08-20-2010)
Old 08-19-2010, 06:38 PM   #40
TiltonBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gilford, NH and Florida
Posts: 1,510
Thanks: 230
Thanked 849 Times in 352 Posts
Default Not in my back yard

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

Boats go by your house and leave a wake? Get over it! It's a boat, that's what they do.
Boat go by your house and you can hear it? Get over it!
The NH philosophy "Live free or die" is being ignored and eroded with all these little rules. They take away from the pleasure and enjoyment that many people have had for years.
My house looks out to open water for several miles. Guess what? When a large boat or a small boat plowing along goes by two miles away the wake splashes over a two foot wall at the water and onto my front lawn. Should I go ask the state to make the area 3 miles in front of my house into a "No Wake" zone?
Should I ask the state to close down the two marinas around the corner that have over 300 boats, many of which leave large wakes as they pass by?
How many people that bought their houses knew what the situation was in front of their house when they bought it and are now trying to change it?
Buy some mooring whips, get a mooring, that is what many people on my street have done.
The last thing we need is more government regulation. Stop trying to change the lake. There was a reason why you bought on Winnipesaukee or moved here, isn't that reason still good enough?
TiltonBB is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to TiltonBB For This Useful Post:
XCR-700 (08-21-2010)
Old 08-19-2010, 07:37 PM   #41
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 Dhuberty24 View Post
I live right outside the barbers pole, I will agree that big boat wakes suck. The biggest problem is the people who are going headway speed in the middle of the channel. They make it so there is no way around but to slow down and slowly pass them, causing a big wake.
I for one always go through the hole in the wall, I usually just idle down there, waiting for the boat to warm up.
One thing I can tell you because I live there is there is definitely no noise problem. I know allot of people on cow island and I have never heard any body ever complain about noise.
Well someone's complaining, at least that's what someone says. The issue snuck up pretty quick on everybody, which I suspect was the intended result. Whenever I hear anyone relate boats on plane to larger wakes, I smell a rat. It sounds to me like someone's been doing some campaigning, or fibbin'.

Either way, I've never heard anyone in a channel or bay want a NWZ. It simply ruins the atmosphere. The same reasoning for this NWZ could apply to Meredith Neck, and a variety of places. I've fought in the past to make sailboats take down their sails and be under power in headway only areas, and I'd do it again.
VtSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2010, 05:43 AM   #42
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,495
Thanks: 931
Thanked 433 Times in 317 Posts
Post Chiming in here...Once...

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

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

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

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

Of Lake Winnipesaukee, how often have we heard:

Quote:
"This Lake is for Everybody"


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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot View Post
"...I...am a safe captain at any speed..."
Of this lake's captains, 50% "are above average".
ApS is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to ApS For This Useful Post:
sunset on the dock (08-20-2010)
Old 08-20-2010, 09:59 AM   #43
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 TiltonBB View Post
The last thing we need is more government regulation. Stop trying to change the lake. There was a reason why you bought on Winnipesaukee or moved here, isn't that reason still good enough?
The lake is not the same lake that it was in 1960. We have valet stacked boats, bigger horsepower, and way more boats altogether. New situations call for different laws. Perhaps it didn't matter 100 years ago if every boat on the lake dumped their human waste into the lake but it does today. Saying "get over it" is just an unrealistic oversimplification.

And last weekend the loudest boat I heard was not a CrissCraft (sic).
sunset on the dock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2010, 10:42 AM   #44
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 VtSteve View Post
Well someone's complaining, at least that's what someone says. The issue snuck up pretty quick on everybody, which I suspect was the intended result. Whenever I hear anyone relate boats on plane to larger wakes, I smell a rat. It sounds to me like someone's been doing some campaigning, or fibbin'.

Either way, I've never heard anyone in a channel or bay want a NWZ. It simply ruins the atmosphere. The same reasoning for this NWZ could apply to Meredith Neck, and a variety of places. I've fought in the past to make sailboats take down their sails and be under power in headway only areas, and I'd do it again.
where exactly is the Barbers pole?
Greene's Basin Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2010, 11:05 AM   #45
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

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

About 90% of the monohulls* and catamarans* in my area have no engines—and that's not including several windsurfers.
*Boaters who actually put the sails up to go boating.
Aside from the sarcasm and my ridiculous comment towards sailboats APS (which you didn't get?), real "residents" of the area in question have chimed in, and spoken their mind.

That's pretty refreshing IMO, so join with them in the discussion, I'll try not to confuse you anymore
VtSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2010, 12:04 PM   #46
DMAX
Junior Member
 
DMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Northwood, NH
Posts: 20
Thanks: 5
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by topwater View Post
What a SAD state of affairs this Lake has turned into. Just a shame!! I see it going down and getting worse every single year, one way or the other. It is truely a shame what the people are doing to this, Once upon a time Great lake! Trying to make it a privatized personal pond is not the way to go.
YES YES YES More rules , More Regulations, More Laws and while were at it lets raise the property taxes on the water front property owners that push for these new laws, to pay for all this extra protection. The way things are going soon enuff the lake will be so over regulated nobody will want to boat on it . Be careful what you wish for, It could get expensive, remember not everybody that lives on the lake is a multi bizillioner. And no I dont live on the lake. I only get to enjoy it a few months out of the year, weekends mostly and I pay a good part of 5K to do it. Not very much time compared to the blessed that get it everyday all year long that keep pushing for more restrictions on what you can and can't do (mostly can't) sad
DMAX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2010, 12:42 PM   #47
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 sunset on the dock View Post
The lake is not the same lake that it was in 1960. We have valet stacked boats, bigger horsepower, and way more boats altogether. New situations call for different laws. Perhaps it didn't matter 100 years ago if every boat on the lake dumped their human waste into the lake but it does today. Saying "get over it" is just an unrealistic oversimplification.

And last weekend the loudest boat I heard was not a CrissCraft (sic).
Dumping anything in the lake has always been a fairly serious thing. I remember one time many years ago a boat and owner were "escorted off the lake", so to speak. I always thought that NH and Winni were lightyears ahead of many states in their water protection.

But getting back to this thread title. People that live there have expressed themselves quite well. How would you address their answers, which are quite up-to-date and current, to the issue at hand?
VtSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2010, 01:05 PM   #48
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 sunset on the dock View Post

And last weekend the loudest boat I heard was not a CrissCraft (sic).
But last weekend the loudest boat I heard was a (woops) Chris-Craft.

Anyway back on topic. There is a petition circulating to have another "public" hearing. Some folks, should I say the majority of the folks in the area of the Barbers Pole are trying to get a legitimate hearing as the previous hearing was done so with little to no notification to the people who reside in this area. I stumbled upon the information while looking for Parking Passes for the Tuftonboro public lot. The petition is being circulated by a gentleman who lives on Tuftonboro Neck. I'll try to get more details. I'll also notify the members of Winni.com of any hearings that come up.
hazelnut is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to hazelnut For This Useful Post:
OCDACTIVE (08-20-2010), VtSteve (08-20-2010)
Old 08-20-2010, 03:22 PM   #49
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 VtSteve View Post

But getting back to this thread title. People that live there have expressed themselves quite well. How would you address their answers, which are quite up-to-date and current, to the issue at hand?
This is how. I spoke with a friend from the Barber Pole today. Signatures had to be collected on a petition in order to get a hearing. At said hearing 12 people signed in as For the NWZ and either 1 or 2 against. Afterwards, people wrote to the DOS, I am told, with a 5:1 majority in favor of the NWZ. These are the real residents of the area chiming in.
sunset on the dock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2010, 04:01 PM   #50
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 hazelnut View Post
But last weekend the loudest boat I heard was a (woops) Chris-Craft.

Anyway back on topic. There is a petition circulating to have another "public" hearing. Some folks, should I say the majority of the folks in the area of the Barbers Pole are trying to get a legitimate hearing as the previous hearing was done so with little to no notification to the people who reside in this area. I stumbled upon the information while looking for Parking Passes for the Tuftonboro public lot. The petition is being circulated by a gentleman who lives on Tuftonboro Neck. I'll try to get more details. I'll also notify the members of Winni.com of any hearings that come up.
Great to hear Hazelnut.... Please keep us informed. I realize you are on the fence but let us know which way you come down on and we will support you 110%.... By all means you live there and will be the most effected!
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2010, 05:09 PM   #51
Yankee
Senior Member
 
Yankee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 150
Thanks: 19
Thanked 38 Times in 23 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Green's Basin Girl View Post
where exactly is the Barbers pole?
From your location, you have to head towards the main area of the lake, the so called Barbers Pole is located where the lake narrows between Cow Island(and 2 small islands, Birch? is one) and the main land. It is a narrow channel where on a busy day it is difficult to keep 150 ft from shore and other oncoming boats.

But that problem is only for a very limited distance, and quickly opens up in either direction. This is the crux of the argrument; that is having to slow down for such a short distance would generally create more boat wake than if boats were allowed to remain on plane. here's the link to the hearing held in July: http://www.tuftonboro.org/pages/tuft...9806E-000F8513

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

At least you have the honor to have a place on the lake, if I were you I'd take solice in that.
__________________
__________________
__________________
So what have we learned in the past two thousand years?

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of Obamunism should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest the Republic become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

. . .Evidently nothing.

(Cicero, 55 BC augmented by me, 2010 AD)

Last edited by Yankee; 08-20-2010 at 06:36 PM.
Yankee is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Yankee For This Useful Post:
OCDACTIVE (08-21-2010), XCR-700 (08-21-2010)
Old 08-20-2010, 07:18 PM   #52
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 hazelnut View Post
Anyway back on topic. There is a petition circulating to have another "public" hearing. Some folks, should I say the majority of the folks in the area of the Barbers Pole are trying to get a legitimate hearing as the previous hearing was done so with little to no notification to the people who reside in this area. I stumbled upon the information while looking for Parking Passes for the Tuftonboro public lot. The petition is being circulated by a gentleman who lives on Tuftonboro Neck. I'll try to get more details. I'll also notify the members of Winni.com of any hearings that come up.
Well this ought to be interesting HN. Apparently, at least 12 people are for the NWZ, and actually signed the petition as being For it.

Sorry Hazelnut, I don't think you're a "real resident" anymore. Looks like headway speed only on the lake from now on.
VtSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to VtSteve For This Useful Post:
OCDACTIVE (08-21-2010)
Old 08-20-2010, 08:00 PM   #53
John A. Birdsall
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Norwich, CT
Posts: 599
Thanks: 27
Thanked 51 Times in 35 Posts
Default new laws??

Someone stated that because of the changing of time, changing of HP on the lake that we need a changing of laws. I think in my lifetime that there has been on one needed change in law and that is the 150' law. The rest of the laws are not needed, You cannot make a law that dictates common sense or courtesy, and for the last 30 years those two items on the lake have deterioated to the point of non exsistance. That does not mean everyone, but a majority. You have people pulling skiers in a small area, but watch out cause there is probably two or three other boats pulling skiers, and perhaps a kayak. We need no new laws, we need a way to instill common sense, and courtesy amongst boaters, whether they be cigarette boats or kayaks or in between.
John A. Birdsall is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to John A. Birdsall For This Useful Post:
chipj29 (08-21-2010), GsChinadoll (08-21-2010), OCDACTIVE (08-21-2010), VitaBene (08-20-2010)
Old 08-20-2010, 08:03 PM   #54
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hollis/Gilford
Posts: 2,688
Thanks: 33
Thanked 437 Times in 247 Posts
Default

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

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

For full disclosure, I was "pro" the Eagle Island NWZ before it was implemented. I'm less sure now, as I just avoid it and the whole area when it's crowded. It is a PITA to slow down mid-week.
jrc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2010, 01:33 AM   #55
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 2,147
Thanks: 191
Thanked 1,374 Times in 554 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John A. Birdsall View Post
Someone stated that because of the changing of time, changing of HP on the lake that we need a changing of laws. I think in my lifetime that there has been on one needed change in law and that is the 150' law. The rest of the laws are not needed, You cannot make a law that dictates common sense or courtesy, and for the last 30 years those two items on the lake have deterioated to the point of non exsistance. That does not mean everyone, but a majority. You have people pulling skiers in a small area, but watch out cause there is probably two or three other boats pulling skiers, and perhaps a kayak. We need no new laws, we need a way to instill common sense, and courtesy amongst boaters, whether they be cigarette boats or kayaks or in between.
Is it common sense that's lacking or is it lack of experience combined with ignorance? It's easy for a seasoned captain to see somebody do something unsafe and say that person is an idiot, but keep in mind that person may have no clue what they are doing. While the boater's ed is a step in the right direction in regards to education, but sometimes what I witness on so many occasions makes me wonder if it's enough for somebody who is really green.

Lack of courtesy is a reflection of the overall condition of our culture and society today. People are becoming more and more interested in themselves and self gratification and less so about the effects of their behavior on others. That's not to say that everyone is like that, but sadly a growing number of people are. This is something no law can address. If our culture does not demand self restraint, decency, and an overall awareness of cause and effect in regards to behavior then the bar is set low as to what is acceptable. This may not go over to well, but I directly relate this to fact that this country was founded on Christian principals which for those that are God fearing understand. Since a growing segment of the population does not adhere to these principals nor understand the basic meaning of right and wrong it's no surprise to see what is occurring. It's a matter I guess of looking at things philosophically.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to MAXUM For This Useful Post:
KPW (08-03-2011)
Old 08-21-2010, 08:48 AM   #56
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

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

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

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

One thing I have suggested in the past, and will do again. Get some special funding for a series of TV/Internet video clips for the MP to do a Boating Tips series. Nothing is better than hands on training and instant feedback, but visuals are a close second. Show a cruiser mushing through that area, followed by a MP doing narrative of what happens to landowners and other boaters. Then, the same boat doing it the preferred way. Very powerful training guides. The $700,000 they took from the MP fund this year could have done a lot of good.
VtSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to VtSteve For This Useful Post:
GsChinadoll (08-21-2010), KPW (08-03-2011)
Old 08-21-2010, 09:30 AM   #57
sunset on the dock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 254
Thanks: 91
Thanked 61 Times in 41 Posts
Default

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

Last edited by sunset on the dock; 08-23-2010 at 03:48 PM. Reason: punctuation
sunset on the dock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2010, 10:31 PM   #58
lfm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Alton Bay
Posts: 96
Thanks: 28
Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts
Default

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

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

For full disclosure, I was "pro" the Eagle Island NWZ before it was implemented. I'm less sure now, as I just avoid it and the whole area when it's crowded. It is a PITA to slow down mid-week.
I don't have a home in that area, but do frequent that area - and I think that the NWZ between Governers and Eagle is awful. The area is prone to big waves/wakes from heavy traffic on weekends and it is made worse by boats coming on and off plane and mushing through there. I think it was much safer to navigate before the NWZ was implemented. I know there are times when travelling through that headway speed is mushing speed to avoid taking waves over the bow.
lfm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2010, 10:49 PM   #59
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

Sunset,

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

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

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

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

There is a huge difference between the snowmobile issue and this one. In most cases snowmachines travel across PRIVATE land- Lake Winnipesaukee is not private, it is owned by all of the residents of NH equally.
VitaBene is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to VitaBene For This Useful Post:
hazelnut (08-22-2010), TiltonBB (08-22-2010), VtSteve (08-22-2010)
Old 08-22-2010, 08:14 AM   #60
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

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

Maxum did indeed make some good points. I fail to see where any of them supported a NWZ, perhaps you could help
VtSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 08:35 AM   #61
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

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

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

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

I do think discussion of all the issues and solutions is better than making idle threats if agreement is not obtained. Please invite those people to discuss this. I'm sure HN is looking for them as well.
VtSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 04:57 PM   #62
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 sunset on the dock View Post
This is how. I spoke with a friend from the Barber Pole today. Signatures had to be collected on a petition in order to get a hearing. At said hearing 12 people signed in as For the NWZ and either 1 or 2 against. Afterwards, people wrote to the DOS, I am told, with a 5:1 majority in favor of the NWZ. These are the real residents of the area chiming in.
"REAL RESIDENTS????" Are you kidding me???? SOTD Step away from the keyboard please.

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

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

As I said I am not sure which way I am leaning as the NWZ would have many benefits for me personally. What I don't like though is the fact that everyone north of the area suffers for my enjoyment. Again SOTD I live in a world where I consider the impact on other people's enjoyment, not just my own selfish views.
hazelnut is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to hazelnut For This Useful Post:
colt17 (08-23-2010), ishoot308 (08-23-2010), Knockers (08-23-2010), NoBozo (08-23-2010), OCDACTIVE (08-23-2010), Resident 2B (08-23-2010), Rose (08-22-2010), Ryan (08-23-2010), VitaBene (08-22-2010)
Old 08-22-2010, 05:38 PM   #63
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 VtSteve View Post
Sunset, it's all well and good to threaten people if they don't bow down to your demands. You're beginning to sound like a terrorist group. Where are these BP residents that want this NWZ, and why aren't they debating this here?
No threats here, and I'm certainly not a terrorist. My point was to point out parallels to existing laws and how they may have come about. And as I said before, the B.P. residents did sign in, show up and write. As to why they aren't debating it here...well Winni.com is a big part of some our lives, but my guess is that if you looked at the number of forum members vs. number of people who enjoy the lake, well the fraction would indeed be very small. That's just simple arithmetic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VtSteve View Post

SOTD, I know that you like NWZ's, and any that are proposed, you'd probably support. But I also notice that you avoid discussions of enforcement, existing laws, and just good common sense boating practices like the plague.
That's only because most of the time they have been discussed in this forum in the light of trying to dis recent progress and changes that have made the lake a better place for most everyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VtSteve View Post
I do think discussion of all the issues and solutions is better than making idle threats if agreement is not obtained. Please invite those people to discuss this. I'm sure HN is looking for them as well.
Again, calling what I said an idle threat is just inflammatory rhetoric. I was making an analogy that ignoring people's concerns, whether it be noise, wakes, or safety, sometimes results in laws which might be more draconian than some would have thought would result (say excessively uncontrolled loud boats being regulated vs. a speed limit or loud snow machines making land owners close their land).
sunset on the dock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2010, 08:14 PM   #64
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

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

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

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

SOTD, you've ceased to be useful in this discussion at all.
VtSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to VtSteve For This Useful Post:
hazelnut (08-23-2010), Yankee (08-23-2010)
Old 08-22-2010, 09:08 PM   #65
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

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

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


Again, calling what I said an idle threat is just inflammatory rhetoric. I was making an analogy that ignoring people's concerns, whether it be noise, wakes, or safety, sometimes results in laws which might be more draconian than some would have thought would result (say excessively uncontrolled loud boats being regulated vs. a speed limit or loud snow machines making land owners close their land).
The part that you are missing is that the overly loud boats or snowmachines are already breaking the existing laws. Making a new law to fight something illegal makes little sense and just taxes the already thin resources of the hard working NH Marine Patrol.
VitaBene is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to VitaBene For This Useful Post:
DEJ (08-23-2010), hazelnut (08-23-2010), OCDACTIVE (08-23-2010), VtSteve (08-23-2010)
Old 08-23-2010, 01:18 AM   #66
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 2,147
Thanks: 191
Thanked 1,374 Times in 554 Posts
Default

SOTD-

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

I think a fair and valid point has been made, the proposal and subsequent meeting in regards to this NWZ was not very well advertised, attended and therefore not necessarily representative of the boating public as much as it COULD have been. If this lead to a decision to be made based on a lack of opposition in attendance I do not think that was a very objective decision to have been made at that time.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to MAXUM For This Useful Post:
colt17 (08-23-2010), DEJ (08-23-2010), hazelnut (08-23-2010), Irrigation Guy (08-23-2010), ishoot308 (08-23-2010), OCDACTIVE (08-23-2010), Resident 2B (08-23-2010), Ryan (08-23-2010), VitaBene (08-23-2010), VtSteve (08-23-2010)
Old 08-23-2010, 10:39 AM   #67
Turtle Boy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 176
Thanks: 17
Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VitaBene View Post
The part that you are missing is that the overly loud boats or snowmachines are already breaking the existing laws. Making a new law to fight something illegal makes little sense and just taxes the already thin resources of the hard working NH Marine Patrol.
The part that some are also missing is that many of these laws are ambigious and difficult to enforce. Take the noise regulations. We have heard discussed how the offending boat needs to tested at a later date and by then the owner may have made modifications (temporary ones that is) so as to temporarily be compliant. And talk about a time and labor intensive enforcement of a law. Very much a waste of resources. And as SOTD keeps trying to point out, people who break these laws and sometimes flaunt it are why new laws are supported to try to fix the loopholes in the already existing law.
Someone said that if you can't get Al Capone for murder then at least get him on tax evasion. This couldn't apply more here and if I lived in the Barber Pole I would understand completely why they would want a NWZ. I hope they get it.
Turtle Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2010, 10:49 AM   #68
COW ISL TIME
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: cow Island and Bedford NH
Posts: 22
Thanks: 1
Thanked 16 Times in 9 Posts
Default

The appeal process for the NWZ will end 08/30/10 thirty days from the approval I'm a resident of Cow Island and directly affected by this. I have read the minutes of the meeting supplied to me by a neighbor, more than half of the people that wrote in were from two families on squirrel Isl and little Birch. These people rent the cottages all summer and spend very little time here,not one is a resident of New Hampshire. I don't know how to go about making an appeal, if anybody does please let me know. One of the petitioners actually sited the Blizzard/ Diamond Island accident as the reason they want a no wake.
COW ISL TIME is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to COW ISL TIME For This Useful Post:
DEJ (08-23-2010), hazelnut (08-23-2010), Resident 2B (08-23-2010)
Old 08-23-2010, 11:02 AM   #69
TiltonBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gilford, NH and Florida
Posts: 1,510
Thanks: 230
Thanked 849 Times in 352 Posts
Default More Problems

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

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

It's all about me and I want this corrected right away!
TiltonBB is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to TiltonBB For This Useful Post:
DEJ (08-23-2010), fartbucket5000 (08-23-2010), OCDACTIVE (08-23-2010), Rattlesnake Guy (08-25-2010), RTTOOL (08-23-2010)
Old 08-23-2010, 12:09 PM   #70
COW ISL TIME
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: cow Island and Bedford NH
Posts: 22
Thanks: 1
Thanked 16 Times in 9 Posts
Default Nwz

Interesting reading, I hope I uploaded correctly
Attached Images
File Type: pdf Barber's Pole NWZ Decision and Order.pdf (178.4 KB, 710 views)
COW ISL TIME is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to COW ISL TIME For This Useful Post:
VitaBene (08-23-2010)
Old 08-23-2010, 12:10 PM   #71
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 MAXUM View Post
SOTD-

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

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

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

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

Such a sad turn for the worse in the state of New Hampshire these days. I saw the Welcome to New Hampshire sign the other day and I literally laughed out loud at the phrase that I used to love to see... "Live Free or Die." Ya right, I think NH needs a new state motto, and I am NOT kidding here. NH needs to strike that one because it is increasingly becoming a punch line to a very bad joke that this state is turning into. What a shame.
hazelnut is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to hazelnut For This Useful Post:
DEJ (08-23-2010), GsChinadoll (08-23-2010), MAXUM (08-23-2010), NoRegrets (08-23-2010), OCDACTIVE (08-23-2010), PC31 (08-24-2010), Resident 2B (08-23-2010), RTTOOL (08-23-2010), Ryan (08-23-2010), VitaBene (08-23-2010), VtSteve (08-23-2010)
Old 08-23-2010, 12:31 PM   #72
gtagrip
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 301
Thanks: 115
Thanked 75 Times in 52 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazelnut View Post
Maxum,

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

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

Such a sad turn for the worse in the state of New Hampshire these days. I saw the Welcome to New Hampshire sign the other day and I literally laughed out loud at the phrase that I used to love to see... "Live Free or Die." Ya right, I think NH needs a new state motto, and I am NOT kidding here. NH needs to strike that one because it is increasingly becoming a punch line to a very bad joke that this state is turning into. What a shame.
Hazelnut, I applaud you for your position regarding the NWZ. You certainly could support the new NWZ for your own "personal selfish agenda" as you would have every right to living in the area. I'm still waiting for SOTD to address some of the comments you have made regarding the "real residents" of the Barber Pole area. I believe he has stated that he has talked to "many" of the real residents of the area. And now it has come to light that in a later post that 2 families that are renters started this process. I guess these are the "real residents" of the area SOTD is referring to.
gtagrip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2010, 01:03 PM   #73
fartbucket5000
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: what are you, a stalker?
Posts: 2
Thanks: 2
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

went through there last wednesday. didn't see any no-wake signs.
fartbucket5000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2010, 01:10 PM   #74
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 COW ISL TIME View Post
Interesting reading, I hope I uploaded correctly
Sorry to flood the thread but I felt it important to point something out to any and all that read this document submitted by COW ISL TIME.



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

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

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

Last edited by hazelnut; 08-23-2010 at 03:27 PM. Reason: Swapped Island Names Originally posted Squirrel as Little Birch by accident. Both Islands are mentioned.
hazelnut is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to hazelnut For This Useful Post:
Resident 2B (08-23-2010), VtSteve (08-23-2010)
Old 08-23-2010, 01:55 PM   #75
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 2,147
Thanks: 191
Thanked 1,374 Times in 554 Posts
Default

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

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

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

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

If there ever was the need for legislative action, maybe this is the time where any petition of this kind when submitted requires that all claims be substantiated with factual data and evaluated before any action is taken or even considered.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2010, 02:02 PM   #76
Kracken
Senior Member
 
Kracken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Alton
Posts: 223
Thanks: 46
Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts
Default Be carefull what you wish for

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

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

I don’t have a horse in this race. I don’t live there and have only been through there once or twice in the past 10 years. It makes no difference to me either way but I would hate to see any change that is a net negative for all.
Kracken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2010, 02:06 PM   #77
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 hazelnut View Post
To have a member of this forum such as SOTD step in and throw the comments that he has just irritates me to no end.
I just went over some of the letters and testimony posted by Cow Isl Time. I'm glad to see some of the other residents of the BP weighing in on an issue that very much affects them. Deja vu...there seems to be a four or five to one majority in favor. Especially compelling are some of the letters written by the islanders and their safety and erosion issues. Just reading this I would think they would do everything possible to keep a NWZ in place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazelnut View Post

Most of what he has said is so completely and patently false I do not know where to begin. All it does is makes me want to go against such a proposal with such fervor that over my dead body it will pass.
Now that seems a bit overly dramatic. I hope the testimony of some of the many BP residents weighing in didn't additionally contribute to this state. Seriously, this is just a NWZ. We have compelling testimony on this thread now from the residents who are affected. I have to say I don't understand all of the histrionics put forth for the simple act of slowing down for two minutes. I mean, good grief, from the reaction here....you would think the residents of the BP were proposing throwing puppies in this narrow channel in November.
sunset on the dock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2010, 02:47 PM   #78
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 Voices Carry

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle Boy View Post
The part that some are also missing is that many of these laws are ambigious and difficult to enforce. Take the noise regulations. We have heard discussed how the offending boat needs to tested at a later date and by then the owner may have made modifications (temporary ones that is) so as to temporarily be compliant. And talk about a time and labor intensive enforcement of a law. Very much a waste of resources. And as SOTD keeps trying to point out, people who break these laws and sometimes flaunt it are why new laws are supported to try to fix the loopholes in the already existing law.
Someone said that if you can't get Al Capone for murder then at least get him on tax evasion. This couldn't apply more here and if I lived in the Barber Pole I would understand completely why they would want a NWZ. I hope they get it.
Regarding the noise through what will be the BP NWZ, if the boat is non-compliant (or even compliant but somewhat loud) with existing laws then the residents of the BP area are going to hear the thrumming of exhaust for 20 minutes not 1 or 2 not to mention the sounds of stereos and talking that carries so well across the water. (my apologies to Aimee Mann for stealing the title of my post from her fantastic song)

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


COW ISL TIME- thank you for posting the PDF, it made for interesting reading.
VitaBene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2010, 03:21 PM   #79
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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trying to turn this into something it is not, won't help anyone or get us anywhere.
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to OCDACTIVE For This Useful Post:
Ryan (08-23-2010)
Old 08-23-2010, 03:46 PM   #80
sunset on the dock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 254
Thanks: 91
Thanked 61 Times in 41 Posts
Default

Reading some of this written testimony makes me understand that any person or group interested in safety would want embrace this new NWZ.
sunset on the dock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2010, 03:54 PM   #81
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 sunset on the dock View Post
I just went over some of the letters and testimony posted by Cow Isl Time. I'm glad to see some of the other residents of the BP weighing in on an issue that very much affects them. Deja vu...there seems to be a four or five to one majority in favor. Especially compelling are some of the letters written by the islanders and their safety and erosion issues. Just reading this I would think they would do everything possible to keep a NWZ in place.
Now that seems a bit overly dramatic. I hope the testimony of some of the many BP residents weighing in didn't additionally contribute to this state. Seriously, this is just a NWZ. We have compelling testimony on this thread now from the residents who are affected. I have to say I don't understand all of the histrionics put forth for the simple act of slowing down for two minutes. I mean, good grief, from the reaction here....you would think the residents of the BP were proposing throwing puppies in this narrow channel in November.
Again a misrepresentation, by you, of the actual facts. The people who sent letters were primarily from two families and some were renters of the cottage on Squirrel. Hardly representative of the residents of the Barbers Pole. Again SOTD you forget that I have a house there, that I actually have the facts. None of my neighbors were represented in those comments as none of my neighbors knew of the hearing until well after it was over. Also many of the residents of Tuftonboro Neck were not represented as proven by the gentleman who came over to my house two weekends ago circulating a petition for an additional hearing. He and several of his neighbors were expressing the same frustration with the lack of notification. Many of my neighbors and I are now in communications discussing our opinions on the matter and what our next step is. Many are remaining silent as there is a "catch 22," that I am very aware of. Many of us who actually live along the strip have this little voice in the back of our heads saying, "hmmmmm it would be nice not to have the wave action during the weekends."

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

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

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

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

Thank You
hazelnut is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to hazelnut For This Useful Post:
DEJ (08-24-2010), MAXUM (08-23-2010), Rose (08-23-2010), Sue Doe-Nym (08-23-2010), VtSteve (08-24-2010)
Old 08-23-2010, 04:48 PM   #82
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 COW ISL TIME View Post
Interesting reading, I hope I uploaded correctly
It truly is a small world isn't it?
VtSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2010, 05:02 PM   #83
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 sunset on the dock View Post
I have to say I don't understand all of the histrionics put forth for the simple act of slowing down for two minutes. I mean, good grief, from the reaction here....you would think the residents of the BP were proposing throwing puppies in this narrow channel in November.
It's called honesty. The people that live there that have commented, are not getting emotional because of a NWZ, not at all. They are getting exited because most didn't know anything about the petition or hearing, and they think that most of the submitted information is a crock.

Most people can see that they are very upfront with their comments, and are still pondering this issue, and discussing this with their neighbors. That is, the ones that really do live there. No "Histrionics" at all, these people have some character, respect the rights of others, and feel that everyone should operate that way. Now, they all know what, and whom they're dealing with.
VtSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2010, 07:08 PM   #84
Yankee
Senior Member
 
Yankee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 150
Thanks: 19
Thanked 38 Times in 23 Posts
Default

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

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

Who else is of the opinion that the needs of the few are outweighing the needs of the many here?
__________________
__________________
__________________
So what have we learned in the past two thousand years?

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of Obamunism should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest the Republic become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

. . .Evidently nothing.

(Cicero, 55 BC augmented by me, 2010 AD)

Last edited by Yankee; 08-23-2010 at 08:59 PM.
Yankee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2010, 07:55 PM   #85
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,495
Thanks: 931
Thanked 433 Times in 317 Posts
Question ON the Fence is a Dead Body...?

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

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

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

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


Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE View Post
"...2. this is not a noise issue, so lets not make it a noise related thread..."
Umm...any new No-Wake Zone puts the exhaust in the waterright where NH's newest noise-law is to measure it.

Something many here wished for...

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE View Post
"...3. this is not a speed issue..."
I read the letters—raising of the night-time limit did affect lake residents' opinions.

Something many here wished for...

Be careful what you wish for...

Last edited by ApS; 08-24-2010 at 05:49 AM. Reason: Added "disclosure" sentence...
ApS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2010, 08:32 PM   #86
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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is getting ridiculous.
hazelnut is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to hazelnut For This Useful Post:
DEJ (08-24-2010), OCDACTIVE (08-24-2010), VitaBene (08-24-2010)
Old 08-23-2010, 08:58 PM   #87
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hollis/Gilford
Posts: 2,688
Thanks: 33
Thanked 437 Times in 247 Posts
Default

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

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

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

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

Anybody who opposes this NWZ is not anti-safety. The merits of the case needs to weighed, including concerns of the abutters and the general boating public. You can't leave it solely to the abutters, the lake is a playground and a means of transportation, both needs must be met.
jrc is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to jrc For This Useful Post:
VitaBene (08-24-2010)
Old 08-23-2010, 10:29 PM   #88
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 hazelnut View Post
My comment was dramatic indeed, to prove a point. Point being is that arrogant attitudes such as yours do more damage to your case. What you don't get, many others here do get it, that I was on the fence. I could have actually been persuaded to support a NWZ in the area. Two things changed my mind:

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



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

Thank You
The Thanks Button is on the fritz?

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

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

HN and others were told that they were ignoring other's concerns. This thread points out what's really happening.
VtSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2010, 07:15 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:
Originally Posted by sunset on the dock View Post
Reading some of this written testimony makes me understand that any person or group interested in safety would want embrace this new NWZ.
Please stop alluding to what "groups" should and should not do. If you feel a group should do something, join that group and have a say, or start your own.

But continuously trying move an agenda through open ended statements and conjecture isn't helping the situation you apparently feel so strongly about.
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to OCDACTIVE For This Useful Post:
winterharbor59 (07-23-2018)
Old 08-24-2010, 08:57 AM   #90
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 jrc View Post
SOTD, I'm going to try a serious discussion one time, before this turns into us versus them again. Am I wasting my time? Are you just toying with us?

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

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

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

Anybody who opposes this NWZ is not anti-safety. The merits of the case needs to weighed, including concerns of the abutters and the general boating public. You can't leave it solely to the abutters, the lake is a playground and a means of transportation, both needs must be met.
Ok, I'll try again. I've even read the letters and testimony again. We are talking of an area with a width of 390' between buoy and Squirrel Island. Put a raft or a swimmer out there, say 150' off shore and the legal area between swimmer and buoy is 90'. My point, clearly this is a narrow area and similar to other NWZ's in width. Take a look at the Farm/Chase NWZ for example. Saying "If the method is anyone who can gather 25 signatures gets a NWZ, then pretty quickly the whole lake becomes a NWZ" is simply being inflammatory because clearly this is not how it works and you know it. The procedure goes from obtaining signatures to scheduling a hearing to hearing testimony to writing letters in support or against. Then the decision is made by the authorities weighing all of the facts and testimony. It is not a decision left solely to the abutters.
To answer your question: "So we need a meaningful method to decide where to put NWZ. What method would you suggest?" , the answer is as clear as the procedure outlined above which you were already aware of. And then to suggest that somehow this process will turn the whole lake into a NWZ is simply preposterous and again inflammatory nonsense. This sky is falling mentality is all too familiar to me from previous debates. And this is also why I feel some of the arguments but forth by some like HN and VtSteve are somewhat disengenuous and comes from the mentality held by some that a boat only has 2 speeds, stop and full throttle. There seem to be about forty responses in the posted NWZ document in favor of a NWZ yet HN seems to have put forth that this whole NWZ could be the result of the people in that little house on Squirrel island who go across the channel in their small boat. Are we to believe there are forty families in that little house? Oh Calcutta, call the board of health.
sunset on the dock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2010, 09:46 AM   #91
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hollis/Gilford
Posts: 2,688
Thanks: 33
Thanked 437 Times in 247 Posts
Default

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

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

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

If the need is obvious, why not wait until the all the interested parties are heard from? The MP is not going to get the zone setup and marked before next season, so what's the hurry? Why not let the people be heard?
jrc is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to jrc For This Useful Post:
DEJ (08-24-2010)
Old 08-24-2010, 10:45 AM   #92
topwater
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 302
Thanks: 85
Thanked 116 Times in 48 Posts
Default

One good thing that I can think of, since it will be a no wake zone, A NEW RAFTING AREA !! SOTD, which house is yours, I'll throw a anchor and have a cocktail with you.
topwater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2010, 11:16 AM   #93
jmen24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,139
Thanks: 223
Thanked 318 Times in 181 Posts
Default

So in theory.

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

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

I think that sums up the current process and I as a non-lakefront property owner, could start all of this on a wim and at my choosing.
jmen24 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to jmen24 For This Useful Post:
VitaBene (08-24-2010)
Old 08-24-2010, 12:35 PM   #94
elchase
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Address?

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

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

This is the address we all wrote to when NHRBA was successfully petitioning to get a NWZ in front of a house on Governor's Island two years ago. Is it still accurate?
  Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to For This Useful Post:
DEJ (08-24-2010), hazelnut (08-24-2010), OCDACTIVE (08-25-2010), VitaBene (08-24-2010)
Old 08-24-2010, 02:11 PM   #95
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,348
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 504
Thanked 461 Times in 161 Posts
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
Could someone please confirm the address to which one should write during the appeal period to support (or not) this NWZ?

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

This is the address we all wrote to when NHRBA was successfully petitioning to get a NWZ in front of a house on Governor's Island two years ago. Is it still accurate?
Yes I do believe that is it. Also, I think it is supposed to go through the whole Statehouse process as well. Thanks for posting the information. I really hope we get big numbers out on this one. This has far reaching affects on many people that use the lake. Not just the tiny fraction of us that live in the area. So again I really appreciate you helping to publicize this. If you could please spread the word and get some letters written from anyone and everyone. We don't want this to slide under the radar. We want as many voices to be heard on this.

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

Thanks again el. If I find out any further information regarding hearings and such I will post it here.
hazelnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2010, 02:28 PM   #96
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 New Commissioner

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
Could someone please confirm the address to which one should write during the appeal period to support (or not) this NWZ?

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

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

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

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

Regards
VitaBene is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to VitaBene For This Useful Post:
hazelnut (08-24-2010)
Old 08-24-2010, 02:41 PM   #97
Turtle Boy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 176
Thanks: 17
Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Hmmmm...reading some of the letters sent to the DOS in support of a NWZ...well it just seems to me that any reasonable person reading these concerns of the people who live there....how could you not agree to a NWZ. And as mentioned above...390'...that's narrow. And it is not unreasonable to suggest that any individual or group who is safety minded would support such a measure. That's just common sense.
Turtle Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2010, 02:46 PM   #98
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default A break?

Great day for a break with this weather and all.

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

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

Bravo Don! and Thanks
VtSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2010, 03:06 PM   #99
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 topwater View Post
One good thing that I can think of, since it will be a no wake zone, A NEW RAFTING AREA !! SOTD, which house is yours, I'll throw a anchor and have a cocktail with you.
I seldom turn down an opportunity for cocktails. Pick me up at my dock. I have a friend in the BP and if I showed up in my easily recognizable boat and anchored then I would be in hot water with both sides in this NWZ argument.
BTW not sure I could ever be happy living in the BP...way too much loud fast boat traffic funneling through such a narrow area.
sunset on the dock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2010, 05:39 PM   #100
Yankee
Senior Member
 
Yankee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 150
Thanks: 19
Thanked 38 Times in 23 Posts
Default question

So, where does it leave those who frequent the lake, but have no lakefront property? Do not the residents of this state have any legal say in this matter?
__________________
__________________
__________________
So what have we learned in the past two thousand years?

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of Obamunism should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest the Republic become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

. . .Evidently nothing.

(Cicero, 55 BC augmented by me, 2010 AD)
Yankee 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 04:25 AM.


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

This page was generated in 0.34101 seconds