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

[MRAB2]

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

[VitaBene]

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.

[chipj29]

It was discussed at length in this thread:
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ad.php?t=10413

[topwater]

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.

[DEJ]

Originally Posted by topwater

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.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by DEJ

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.

[NoRegrets]

Originally Posted by topwater

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!!!!

[4Fun]

Originally Posted by NoRegrets

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....

[DMAX]

Originally Posted by topwater

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

[MJM]

Is the Barber Pole even there anymore? I went by where I thought it was, and didn't see it...

[BroadHopper]

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!

[pm203]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

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.

[HUH]

Dont understand why anyone would complain about this.. It gets a little tight in there at times.. This lake needs more no wake areas ..

[cowisl]

Originally Posted by HUH

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.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by HUH

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.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

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.

[OCDACTIVE]

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.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

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.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

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.

[Formula]

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.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

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.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

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?

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

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.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

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.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

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.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

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.

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

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!

[OCDACTIVE]

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?????

[DEJ]

Thanks SOTD, this info could be very usefull for anyone who is considering an appeal.

[Dhuberty24]

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.

[hazelnut]

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.

[TiltonBB]

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?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

"...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!

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...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:

"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"?

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

"...I...am a safe captain at any speed..."

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

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

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).

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Dhuberty24

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.

[Greene's Basin Girl]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

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?

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

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.

[VtSteve]

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.

[DEJ]

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."

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by DEJ

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.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

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.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

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.

[VtSteve]

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.

[Baja Guy]

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

[neckdweller]

Originally Posted by MJM

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.

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by neckdweller

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.

[KPW]

Tuftonboro is having a meeting tonight at 7:00 pm regarding the Barber pole nwz. Not sure where on the agenda it will fall.

[Little Bear]

Originally Posted by KPW

Tuftonboro is having a meeting tonight at 7:00 pm regarding the Barber pole nwz. Not sure where on the agenda it will fall.

Is this different than the hearing in Tuftonboro that was conducted by the Department of Safety earlier today? If so, I'd be interested in knowing what jurisdiction the Town has over this matter?

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Barber Pole NWZ hearing was held this morning at 10:00 AM at Tuftonboro Meeting Hall. Anyone out there who attended care to share their thoughts?

[hazelnut]

The hearing was held today. The hearing was limited to the 11 individuals that submitted requests for re-hearing. The state will now decide whether or not to allow a full re-hearing, which will make the original hearing null and void and essentially set the process back to square one. If the state decides a re-hearing is necessary we will be notified and we will pass along the information to all. If th state decides a re-hearing is not warranted then the process continues to the state level through the house, senate, etc.

The hearing was fairly well attended.

[KPW]

I thought it was included in the regular town agenda. My mistake.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

The hearing was fairly well attended.

1) I'd "audited" a similar NWZ hearing—in the same building—about ten years ago: No one "in opposition" to the NWZ had appeared at the previous hearing. (Attended by about 30 people). In spite of that turnout, it failed then, but something equivalent is in place near Tuftonboro Neck "Narrows"—today.

2) At the earlier hearing at the same location, I'd noticed no particular odor—this hearing was different. Can anyone account for that odor?

It wasn't "the usual suspect" from Wolfeboro—who's expected to do a rumored eight years for transporting the stuff.

3) At dinner last evening, I encountered a friendly face—a diner from Massachusetts—with whom I've spoken at area restaurants. I'd seen her at the hearing, but didn't have an opportunity to re-introduce myself there.

After the hearing, she was speaking with an elderly gentleman—could that have been Hal C. Lyon, the author of local Bass-fishing lore?

This is turning into a much longer reply than I'd planned!

4) Anyway, it turns out this person lives at the northern reach of the Barber Pole NWZ, and their family is opposed to that NWZ—saying:

"The NWZ is too long—we and our neighbors have been water-skiing through there for ages. "

[OCDACTIVE]

GRANTED!

"the Original Petition fails to provide the requisite number of signatures with supporting proof that the co petitioners are either residents or property owners pursuant to RSA 270:12,I. Based upon my response within section IV, (sub. 3), the Appellants Motion to Reopen pursuant to RSA 541:3 are granted."

The original petitioners must provide proof that a minium number of the original 25 co-petitioners listed in the original document are residents or property owners in Tuftonboro by use of official town record.

Since many petitioners are of the same family / property this will be impossible to do.

Basically this will cancel the petition outright.

[Hammond]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

GRANTED!

"the Original Petition fails to provide the requisite number of signatures with supporting proof that the co petitioners are either residents or property owners pursuant to RSA 270:12,I. Based upon my response within section IV, (sub. 3), the Appellants Motion to Reopen pursuant to RSA 541:3 are granted."

The original petitioners must provide proof that a minium number of the original 25 co-petitioners listed in the original document are residents or property owners in Tuftonboro by use of official town record.

Since many petitioners are of the same family / property this will be impossible to do.

Basically this will cancel the petition outright.

Wow. Nice to see that the SBONH group was able to change the outcome of this attempt buy a few to slip this No Wake Zone proposal through the system.

To me it seemed that SBONH did not take sides on the issue but rather challenged the process. I find that to be a very important distinction and applaud them and their efforts to see that a small vocal minority could not push their agenda through the system without allowing ALL in the area the opportunity to provide their input on the proposed NWZ.

This was NOT a Go Fast agenda but a DO IT the RIGHT WAY initiative. Regardless of the eventual outcome of the Barber Pole NWZ I admire the goal of SBONH.

Responsible legislation makes noting but good (and proper) sense.

Wonder how Turtle Boy, Sunset on the Dock, El Chase and their very few verbose and prolific posting cohorts will try to spin this success.

Bravo SBONH and thank you.

[Bearislandmoose]

I think its great that someone is finally stepping up and putting all these old fogies back in their place. All these efforts to slow everyone down are just driving tourists away from New Hampshire. Speed used to be king on Winni, now it is suddenly a bad word? That channel is plenty wide enough for boats to pass each other full throttle. I am a bass fisherman and we need to go through there all the time. If we have to slow down, it costs us money. We are working with our rep to have the speed limit repealed. He will be filing a bill right after the election. Stay tuned. Safe Boaters or Unsafe boaters, I don't care. I just want our lake back the way it was a couple of years ago when you could do pretty much as you pleased without worrying about your speed. I agree with OCD, its time to put the throttle down.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bearislandmoose

I think its great that someone is finally stepping up and putting all these old fogies back in their place. All these efforts to slow everyone down are just driving tourists away from New Hampshire. Speed used to be king on Winni, now it is suddenly a bad word? That channel is plenty wide enough for boats to pass each other full throttle. I am a bass fisherman and we need to go through there all the time. If we have to slow down, it costs us money. We are working with our rep to have the speed limit repealed. He will be filing a bill right after the election. Stay tuned. Safe Boaters or Unsafe boaters, I don't care. I just want our lake back the way it was a couple of years ago when you could do pretty much as you pleased without worrying about your speed. I agree with OCD, its time to put the throttle down.

Nice try

[webmaster]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

When people try to stir the pot, even stirring so obviously as above, it's usually met by a Webmaster that points out if the IP addy is the same as another current user.

Bearislandmoose and elchase post from the same IP number.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by webmaster

Bearislandmoose and elchase post from the same IP number.

Don thank you so much. I really appreciate you sharing this information with the membership as it is truly your call to have done so.

[winni83]

Well now, isn’t that interesting; and to think that the illustrious and righteous El Chase told us on August 25, 2010 in post # 128 of this thread that:

“I hope this one last post can get through without editing. If it is, then I promise this will be the LAST time I ever try to opine on this site.”
“If it does make it through, then I promise you I will never darken the door of this forum again.”

I would not be surprised to see the argument raised that (a) our webmaster is wrong; (b) someone hijacked EL Chase’s IP address; (c) someone else in the El Chase household is using the IP address; or, perhaps (d) that El Chase has abandoned his fellow travelers. This is better than a soap opera.

[Bearislandmoose]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

What an attempt to try to stir the pot

winni83's post was not an attempt to "stir the pot", but my reply to it was? Your hypocrisy is matched only by your intellectual dishonesty. I assume that your instant conversion from a "thunder boater" to a "safe boater" must have resulted from a near death experience, and was not driven by some long term plan to reverse the SL?. Come on.

Originally Posted by winni83

I think this poster has crossed the line

Please spare me. I looked for "winni83" in the phone book, and can't find anyone by that name, so aren't you crossing the same line? In fact, I have apparently been the only one on this forum using his real name until now. Is OCD somebody's real name? Is Vitabean?
You guys sound like the press after they found out Christine O'Donnell had "dabbled in witchcraft" when she was fifteen years old. Get real. This is not testimony before a grand jury. This is an internet forum.

As I said, if you want me to stay away, stop taunting me by dropping my name out of the blue for no reason, like winni83 did. If you can't do that, then you get what you get and can't cry "foul" about it.

Wah, wah, wah.

[chipj29]

Funny, I thought this thread was about the NWZ at the Barbers Pole.

Great news that the motion to re-open was granted. No surprise that the usual trolls come out of hiding as soon as news they don't like comes out.

[RI Swamp Yankee]

Originally Posted by Bearislandmoose

... Speed used to be king on Winni, .....

You must have a short memory. How fast can you go with a 10 HP Johnson on a 12 foot boat?

[OCDACTIVE]

Safe Boaters of New Hampshire
“To promote safety through education and legislation that works”
http://www.SBONH.ORG

State orders hearing on the No Wake Zone at Lake Winnipesaukee’s “Barber Pole” reopened.

Safe Boaters of NH pushes bill to ensure proper notification of future hearings.


For Immediate Release:


The New Hampshire Department of Safety has reversed its earlier decision establishing the largest no wake zone on Lake Winnipesaukee and has ordered the process reopened.

The decision was made after a petition by residents of the area and Safe Boaters of New Hampshire questioned whether proper notification was given since most of the property owners in the area were unaware of the petition until after a ruling had been made, and whether the original petitioners met the legal requirements to file such a petition.

The Department of Safety ruled that the legal requirement may not have been met and has ordered the people calling for a no wake zone at Lake Winnipesaukee’s “Barber Pole” to show proof of residency. The department also ruled that proper legal notice was given via publication in the only statewide newspaper in New Hampshire.

Safe Boaters of New Hampshire believes that in the era of dwindling newspaper circulation and greater reliance on the internet and other forms of communication, the methods of legal notification accepted in the past are no longer adequate.

Safe Boaters of New Hampshire has filed a bill that would address the notification process when a petition to change or restrict the use of New Hampshire’s public waterways is being considered. The bill requires the petitioners to notify the abutters of the area being targeted by certified mail and requires the Department of Safety to post the notification of the petition on the department’s official website at least two weeks prior to the hearing.

Regardless of the outcome of the “Barber Pole” no wake zone issue Safe Boaters of New Hampshire firmly believes everyone affected should have an opportunity to know about the proposed changes prior to decisions being made.

[Bearislandmoose]

Tough crowd.

[Joe Kerr]

Originally Posted by Bearislandmoose

Tough crowd.

Come on now BearIslandMoose. We're not a "tough crowd" but a wise crowd. Wise to you and your kind of trolling and propaganda.

In your very first post to the forum you said

Originally Posted by Bearislandmoose

I think its great that someone is finally stepping up and putting all these old fogies back in their place. All these efforts to slow everyone down are just driving tourists away from New Hampshire. Speed used to be king on Winni, now it is suddenly a bad word? That channel is plenty wide enough for boats to pass each other full throttle. {snip} you could do pretty much as you pleased without worrying about your speed. I agree with OCD, its time to put the throttle down.

You are putting words in OCD's mouth. You are trying to stir the pot and trying to portray this procedural issue accomplishment into an unlimited speed and wild cowboy scare scenario.

The forum isn't buying your bull moose. If you are not Turtle Boy, SOTD, ElChase or APS in moose clothing then I believe they put you up to this. I quoted you and bolded some of your outrageous comments. You attempt to cast a black shadow over a SBONH success. You seem to want to inflame and distract from them and their accomplishment. Your attitude is deplorable. This thread is not about speed but about the process of legislation.

We are becoming keenly aware of the tactics of the pro speed limit group and some of their supporters. Those who are afraid of SBONH and wish to discredit them and their organization.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Joe Kerr

We are becoming keenly aware of the tactics of the pro speed limit group and some of their supporters...If you are not Turtle Boy, SOTD, ElChase or APS in moose clothing then I believe they put you up to this.

Please leave me out of this: I have it especially easy in the finding of fradulent posts, polls and voting record of the "Unlimited Speeds for Winnipesaukee" crowd.

Originally Posted by Joe Kerr

Those who are afraid of SBONH and wish to discredit them and their organization.

Before anything with real meaning happens, SBONH will eventually discredit themselves—just as the NHRBA did.

In the immortal words of Wednesday-Friday Addams,

"Just wait"

[Bearislandmoose]

Originally Posted by Joe Kerr

Come on now BearIslandMoose. We're not a "tough crowd" but a wise crowd. Wise to you and your kind of trolling and propaganda. ...The forum isn't buying your bull moose...

The best part about this one is that OCD gives you a big "Thanks" for this nonsense, as if you said just what he was thinking when he read my post. What he doesn't mention is the PM he sent to bearislandmoose right after that post...before he knew who bearislandmoose really was, welcoming me aboard, and giving me his phone number to call. What a bunch of phonies.
If you guys had named your group "Fast Boaters of New Hampshire", I'd still disagree with your agenda but would have nothing but respect for your honesty. I respect a good healthy disagreement...democracy in action. But naming yourselves "Safe Boaters", as if the people of NH are too stupid to not see through that, says everything about you and your collective honesty. I've never seen that name said without the speaker putting air quotes around the word "safe". It's like a crooked car salesman using the name "Honest John", or the biggest guy on the football team being named "Little Bill". Ya, that makes it true.
And riding the coatskirts of the honorable Power Squadron as they did their inspections to gain false integrity, then introducing ITL-ready bills through some shill of a representative to try to build a false reputation, are the things that really deserve such outrage. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.
Admit "Safe Boaters" one and only ultimate goal...to repeal the SL, and I will praise your integrity while I work against you. But play these dishonest games, and you have no excuse to call anything "over the line", or calling anyone else "dishonest". What could possibly be more "over the line" or "dishonest" than using the name "Safe Boaters" for this group of cowboys and scofflaws? Instead of directing your outrage at the phony who has embarrassed you with that moniker, you praise him...and you try to make a huge controversy out of something so trivial as a phony post under a phony name that makes a perfect point...on an internet forum. Your protest is so shallow as to be pathetic.
I have to give you credit though Joe. Assuming your name is really Joe Kerr, at least you have the fortitude to use your name before you criticize others for not using theirs. Is Joe Kerr really your name? If not, I take that back.

And who is this purveyor of wisdom from Vermont? Can I use some of those gems in my upcoming book on the Human Experience? Is that Leo Sandy in disguise? Give me a break.

[fatlazyless]

Not sure if this link www.bigbadboat.com is relevant to this thread. If the link works, it has an article about the Safe Boaters of New Hampshire, 'SBONH', that's titled "New Activist Group Seeks to Keep Lake WinniPesaukee Open for Performance Boaters" and it is dated September 23, 2010.

...thankyou very much!

[Bearislandmoose]

Originally Posted by gtagrip

Why not talk about how a small group of people tried to sneak in a bill that no one else even knew about... Not one comment from you regarding that.

I guess you didn't read my earlier post where I did just that. I'll give it to you again (if you can excuse my "parsing");

Originally Posted by Bearislandmoose

...You guys were the petitioners and biggest proponents of Bourgeious' undeserved personal NWZ a few years back. Few of those fronting that petition were "local residents" then, and none of you seem concerned that your petition then got through without all this notification of the local residents. Is "Safe Boaters" going to try to have that petition repealed? Are they moving for a new hearing to set that one right? I didn't think so.

[Bearislandmoose]

Originally Posted by Hammond

Wonder how Turtle Boy, Sunset on the Dock, El Chase and their very few verbose and prolific posting cohorts will try to spin this success.

You all have to ask why I returned? Come on. As long as you keep dropping my name, you can't complain when I chime back in occasionally. And my post was perfectly poetic. It says exactly what you all keep saying and shows how goofy the arguments are. I clearly could not have done that as myself. I'm actually surprised that half of you did not "Thank" me before you woke up.

And how is a post under a fake name any different than OCD using the embarrassing name "Safe Boaters" for your go-fast club? You guys are hypocrites. You put on a costume ("We are really only doing this to promote full disclosure of such petitions, it has nothing to do with any objection to being told to slow down. All we really care about is safety."), then challenge other people's righteousness? Give me a break. What a bunch of phonies.

You guys were the petitioners and biggest proponents of Bourgeious' undeserved personal NWZ a few years back. Few of those fronting that petition were "local residents" then, and none of you seem concerned that your petition then got through without all this notification of the local residents. Is "Safe Boaters" going to try to have that petition repealed? Are they moving for a new hearing to set that one right? I didn't think so.

"Safe Boaters" is obviously nothing more than a group of go-fast cowboys whose sole mission is to get the SL repealed. They are biding their time with these obvious distractions (boating inspections, silly ITL bills, washing Barrett's car), but we all know what they are all about. Put the throttle down...make some Thunder.

Now stop recalling me and I'll stop posting, as promised. But every time you drop my name, whether expressly or through reference, I'll be back. You'll know its me because it will be a first time poster pointing out the idiocies of your agendas.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by Bearislandmoose

You all have to ask why I returned? Come on. As long as you keep dropping my name, you can't complain when I chime back in occasionally. And my post was perfectly poetic. It says exactly what you all keep saying and shows how goofy the arguments are. I clearly could not have done that as myself. I'm actually surprised that half of you did not "Thank" me before you woke up.

And how is a post under a fake name any different than OCD using the embarrassing name "Safe Boaters" for your go-fast club? You guys are hypocrites. You put on a costume ("We are really only doing this to promote full disclosure of such petitions, it has nothing to do with any objection to being told to slow down. All we really care about is safety."), then challenge other people's righteousness? Give me a break. What a bunch of phonies.

You guys were the petitioners and biggest proponents of Bourgeious' undeserved personal NWZ a few years back. Few of those fronting that petition were "local residents" then, and none of you seem concerned that your petition then got through without all this notification of the local residents. Is "Safe Boaters" going to try to have that petition repealed? Are they moving for a new hearing to set that one right? I didn't think so.

"Safe Boaters" is obviously nothing more than a group of go-fast cowboys whose sole mission is to get the SL repealed. They are biding their time with these obvious distractions (boating inspections, silly ITL bills, washing Barrett's car), but we all know what they are all about. Put the throttle down...make some Thunder.

Now stop recalling me and I'll stop posting, as promised. But every time you drop my name, whether expressly or through reference, I'll be back. You'll know its me because it will be a first time poster pointing out the idiocies of your agendas.

In my book, El's comments are always welcome on this forum, under any name. No one has done more to expose the hypocrisy of certain members of the SL coalition. He has provided badly needed transparency to what is going on behind the scenes in many instances, often with surgical precision. Welcome back.
As far as the mission of some to repeal or amend the SL, I think most of our leaders in Concord are savvy enough to see what's really going on. A few fringe members of our legislature will be unable to change what most people on the lake have wanted for a very long time. The overwhelming support of the SL by the House, Senate, and letters and emails attests to this. I also hope that if a bill is put forth to exclude the Broads from the SL that there is an opposing bill put forth whereby the SL on the Broads would continue to be 45 MPH but on the rest of the lake it is substantially lower, say 35 MPH.JMO

[winni83]

I respectfully suggest to the Webmaster that the IP address of this person be permanently blocked from further posting. At least other people who agree with him have the courage and moral character to continue to post under their member names, and for that I respect them.

[jrc]

I disagree, let him post and let him use whatever name he wants, he really can't hide his agenda.

We have to be open to people that disagree with us, we are not a bunch of Joy Baher's are we?

I Remember, when another poster kept changing his screen name, pretty soon no one took him seriously.

[winni83]

I certainly agree that this forum should generally be open to all and that debate is healthy. However, I think this poster has crossed the line and that was the reason for my suggestion. His words and actions have certainly served to undermine the credibility of whatever cause he is advocating.

[Bearislandmoose]

Originally Posted by Hammond

Did they address the Barber Pole No Wake Zone situation?

Regarding that Barber Pole No Wake zone situation; you guys were the petitioners and biggest proponents of the undeserved personal No Wake Zone in front of the house of one of your own a couple of years back. Few of those fronting that petition were "local residents" then, and none of you seem concerned that your petition then got through without all this notification of the real local residents. Is "Safe" Boaters going to try to have that petition repealed? Are they moving for a new hearing to set that one right?

[sound of crickets chirping]

I didn't think so.

The hypocracy is comical.

[ronc4424]

No wake ruling reversed after questions raised about process

Staff Report


Monday, November 8, 2010
CONCORD — The state Department of Safety has reversed its earlier decision establishing the largest no wake zone on Lake Winnipesaukee and has ordered the process reopened.

The Department of Safety ruled that the legal requirement may not have been met and has ordered the people calling for a no wake zone at Lake Winnipesaukee's "Barber Pole" to show proof of residency. The department also ruled that proper legal notice was given via publication in the only statewide newspaper in New Hampshire.

The decision was made after a petition by residents of the area and Safe Boaters of New Hampshire questioned whether proper notification was given since most of the property owners in the area were unaware of the petition until after a ruling had been made, and whether the original petitioners met the legal requirements to file such a petition.

Safe Boaters of New Hampshire believes that in the era of dwindling newspaper circulation and greater reliance on the Internet and other forms of communication, the methods of legal notification accepted in the past are no longer adequate.

Safe Boaters of New Hampshire has filed a bill that would address the notification process when a petition to change or restrict the use of New Hampshire's public waterways is being considered. The bill requires the petitioners to notify the abutters of the area being targeted by certified mail and requires the Department of Safety to post the notification of the petition on the department's official website at least two weeks before the hearing.

Regardless of the outcome of the "Barber Pole" no wake zone issue Safe Boaters of New Hampshire firmly believes everyone affected should have an opportunity to know about the proposed changes before decisions being made.

[hazelnut]

Steve drop it. It's not worth it. TB is grasping at straws. He obviously doesn't read anything thoroughly. If he did he would already know that the Squirrel Islanders are transient. The house is rented 100% of the summer. But thems are facts and facts don't matter to good ole Turtle Boy. Hahahaha

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Steve drop it. It's not worth it. TB is grasping at straws. He obviously doesn't read anything thoroughly. If he did he would already know that the Squirrel Islanders are transient. The house is rented 100% of the summer. But thems are facts and facts don't matter to good ole Turtle Boy. Hahahaha

Hmmmm...just reread the testimony from the link on post #70 of this thread. Many people, well over 20, describe themselves as owners or co-owners, people like the Phillips, Lights, Kirby's , Wolcotts, Boris', Hilbink's, Fernalds, Brown's....but thems are facts and facts don't matter to good ole VtSteve and HN. Maybe these people are all liars as well as owners.Oh yeah, only 2 people in favor of the NWZ. I hope some of the people in the BP point this out to the person writing the LDS article. It would show a bit more sunlight into your caves, similar to that shown last week with the 2 letters to the editor.

[hazelnut]

Does anyone else want to take this and spell out the obvious? I'll get it started. TB what was the reason given by the state that the original hearing was deemed invalid? I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count. Hahahaha.

[Yankee]

Beat me to it Hazelnut!

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Does anyone else want to take this and spell out the obvious? I'll get it started. TB what was the reason given by the state that the original hearing was deemed invalid? I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count. Hahahaha.

So, 20 plus people in favor of a NWZ. But thems are facts and facts don't matter to good ole HN. Tell me again how only 2 people were in favor of the NWZ. hahahaha

We got our SL...you need to get over it...you really are a nasty and denigrating person as has been pointed out in the past; hope they get their NWZ...their testimony is compelling and it seems inevitable they will eventually prevail.

[Yankee]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

So, 20 plus people in favor of a NWZ. But thems are facts and facts don't matter to good ole HN. Tell me again how only 2 people were in favor of the NWZ. hahahaha

We got our SL...you need to get over it...you really are a nasty and denigrating person as has been pointed out in the past; hope they get their NWZ...their testimony is compelling and it seems inevitable they will eventually prevail.

Apparently the obvious needs to be stated. The petition that you are refering was rejected outright:

Requoting OCD in post# 220:

"the Original Petition fails to provide the requisite number of signatures with supporting proof that the co petitioners are either residents or property owners pursuant to RSA 270:12,I. Based upon my response within section IV, (sub. 3), the Appellants Motion to Reopen pursuant to RSA 541:3 are granted.

The original petitioners must provide proof that a minium number of the original 25 co-petitioners listed in the original document are residents or property owners in Tuftonboro by use of official town record.

Since many petitioners are of the same family / property this will be impossible to do."

This is yet another in a LONG line of your lame attempts to intentionally and feebly misdirect the truth. Why do you keep digging the hole that you're in deeper?

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

So, 20 plus people in favor of a NWZ. But thems are facts and facts don't matter to good ole HN. Tell me again how only 2 people were in favor of the NWZ. hahahaha

We got our SL...you need to get over it...you really are a nasty and denigrating person as has been pointed out in the past; hope they get their NWZ...their testimony is compelling and it seems inevitable they will eventually prevail.

Wow!

STATISTICS:

On July 21, 2010, three (3) persons testified and twelve (12)
persons signed to record themselves in support of the petition. One (1)
person testified, and one (1) person signed to not speak, but be
recorded against the petition. Hon. John A. Veazey, State
Representative provided a history of the area known as Barber’s Pole.
Prior to and/or after the hearing, fifty-seven (57) people sent via mail,
e-mail or facsimile public commentary. The hearing was closed to public
comment at the conclusion of the business day on Friday, July 23, 2010.

Sounds like a tidal wave of support there TB.

Was Mr. Phillips the Coach? He was my favorite. He sounded eloquent enough to be Warren Clark. You guys must have been planning this since you first came across some old filings.

TB, you really should pass this off to WC, he's a much better liar than you are, lot's smoother as well. One thing to consider. Right here on this forum, you and others, have completely contradicted your prior statements about how wonderful and peaceful the lake has been, For Two Years Now.!!!

Everyone's keeping track at this point, because sure as there's an idiot missing from someone's village, you guys will come out with some outlandish (and contradictory) story for next year's misery.

[gtagrip]

Still waiting for TB to answer the question poised by Yankee. But since the silence is so defining, I think we all know the answer.

Acres, yes, I do consider you to be in the 3 or 4.

[hazelnut]

Thanks Yankee, apparently reading is not TB's forte. Hahahaha

[Yankee]

No problem Hazelnut. When people such as ReptileBoy promote circumvention of the laws in this state/country for their own selfish interests it really, really pisses me off!

And no, ReptileBoy I am not a member nor do I know anyone associated with SBONH.

[Bearislandmoose]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

You are such an idiot. ...

And you are such a Democrat. This is so typical a response from someone like you. We have apparently decided that there are no more lines to be crossed. Resorting to such childishness as name-calling might work for you at the bar, but I am not intimidated. Aggressive behavior is no longer going to work for you and your buddies. It doesn't work on the lake, it won't work on the forum. As impossible as this may sound, you have further embarrassed yourself.
Is this how you talk to your little students? This is why home-schooling is gaining so much popularity. Who would want to trap their little girl or boy in a classroom with a "teacher" who talks like this? Do you beat them physically too, or just emotionally?

[winni83]

Let’s see if I have this right. Anyone one who disagrees with BIM, El C or Ed C or his cadre is “emotionally pre-pubescent or blind, or both” or even worse, a “Democrat”. Perhaps some of your supporters might be of that politically persuasion. Your self serving and patently false descriptions of how “heavenly” it is as result of the speed limit fool on one and you are simply preaching to your adoring choir and producing word bites in an attempt to denigrate all those who disagree with you.

As I noted previously:

“Obviously, there has been a death among the deities and APS, SOTD, TB, BI, El-C et. al. have been appointed to determine infallibly what is reasonable and civilized for us all, whether it be speed, horsepower, size or type of boat, no wake zones or whatever else annoys or disturbs them from time to time.”

BIM, El C or Ed C refers to hypocrisy, childishness and idiocy. He should look in the mirror for perfect examples, assuming that the mirror does not fracture in horror. Your pathetic attempts to insult someone like Hazelnut demonstrate your true character. Suggesting on a public forum that someone may beat children or abuse them emotionally is beyond contempt. When you have no remaining rational arguments, you resort to this. And to think that someone would thank you for that post! Your tactics are those of a megalomaniac and despot.

With such a fearless, honest, honorable and never deceptive leader as BIM, El C or Ed C and his band of sycophants, we can all sleep, or boat, well.

[Bearislandmoose]

This unmoderated forum is great, it allows you guys to show your real simian selves and degrade into the behavior that you use to display when you were behind the wheels of your thunder boats. The slightest frustration, and you turn into babbling and vulgar bullies.
The lake was just great this summer...just like the summer before. No high speed accidents, nobody killed because someone was driving his (or her) boat too fast. The kids camps were taking their members out canoeing again. Sailing returned in a big way. Trolling for salmon in the Broads was enjoyable again. It was Winnipesaukee the way it is supposed to be... The way it always was before you...the way it is depicted in our tourism brochures and ads. It was shared safely and enjoyably by everyone. You guys repeatedly talked about how the SL did not chase you away or slow you down, so obviously, it was not a problem for you. But that backfired, so now you are trying to claim differently...even resorting to some silly tactic that you are all buying Carvers to swamp us and teach us a lesson. What good sports you are.
You just oppose the SL because you did not get your way, as you are so accustomed. You just don't like rules and limitations no matter how reasonable. If we asked for a 200MPH SL, you would have opposed it and you'd be fighting to repeal it.

"Safe" boaters my ***. You can put lipstick on a pig, but its still a pig.

[winni83]

Q. E. D.

Thanks.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Warren hahaha Love ya man...... I mean seriously I know hundreds of people that read, but do not post here, and they are hysterically laughing at you, as am I.

Are they same people you met in taverns, arcades, and gas stations, not one of whom was in favor of the speed limit? Ha Ha Ha Ha

Thanks for the laughs.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Not one person in the SBONH had anything to do with any other NWZ on the lake.

How can this be stated as fact?

No members from Winnilakers, SOS or NHRBA among this lake's "Safest-Boaters" mob?

[jrc]

Watching this is weird, it's like some of the old usenet groups in the 1990's. I trying to guess who will break Godwin's law first.

Calling someone a Democrat doesn't count.

[Bearislandmoose]

I just keep thinking how scary it is to think that a guy like this has our little kids for 6 hours a day. Imagine if Mommy really knew who she was entrusting little Suzie to? Very disturbing.

[Bearislandmoose]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

... Muhuhuhuhahahaha ... ... ... ... ... hahahahahahahah ... ...hahahahahaha ... ... I'm laughing so hard ... ... Oh man I have to wipe the tears now...... wow! ... ...

Wow. Very scary. There are support groups for people who so excessively use emoticons and rant on like this with no particular purpose. For the rest of us, there are discussion groups that talk about you. 16 smilies in one post? ...Muhaha? ...and the way you "use smilies in a wild and un-organized fashion - or in other words, use them in a way that relays a sense of immaturity" perfectly fits the profile of a ***.

Are you really a teacher of little kids or is this just a Halloween prank? Please be honest with me, are you Leo Sandy? He's that teacher who always writes those letters to the LDS...is that really you?

Now, let's get back on topic. Are you guys going to use the same passion to have your Eagle Island (Bourgeoious) NWZ repealed because it too was "put through under the radar"? I've asked this several times and you guys keep changing the topic and using red herring responses to name-call and turn the discussion into one about me. Just answer yes or no.

That Eagle Island NWZ process was IDENTICAL to the BP one in every way, yet not only were you-all behind it because it gave one of your "safe" members a personal quiet zone to enjoy when he was not out in his thunder boat harassing the rest of us, but now you do not want to discuss it because it shows the hypocrisy of your current actions, and shows the lie that "its not about being able to go really fast, we only want these things to be done in the open" really is.

Was the SL "put through under the radar" too? You should use also try this argument when you file for that repeal.

I do not care much about the Barber Pole area. I'm over there maybe five times a year and am usually trolling and going headway speed anyway. Bass boaters sometimes pass me going way too fast, but they are not as threatening as a 10000 pound thunder boat and the operators of bass boats can see over their bows, and are rarely drunk, so I don't worry about them running me over. I hope the BP NWZ goes through, only because it is what the people who live there...the people who know first hand what goes on there day in and day out... want. And because I know that the "its not about being able to go really fast, we only want these things to be done in the open" motto was written by the same phonies who gave us "safe boaters"...and I know who they really are and what they are really about.

Sorry if all this disturbs you, but you reap what you sow.

Now please have that emoticon issue looked into. It might not do any harm in and of itself, but it is a marker for a progressively deteriorating mental state that should be nipped in the bud.

[Bearislandmoose]

Question:

Originally Posted by Bearislandmoose

Is "Safe Boaters" going to try to have that petition (Eagle Island) repealed? Are they moving for a new hearing to set that one right?

Answer:

Originally Posted by gtagrip

What a weird person you are.

Question:

Originally Posted by Bearislandmoose

Is "Safe Boaters" going to try to have that petition (Eagle Island) repealed? Are they moving for a new hearing to set that one right?

Answer:

Originally Posted by Hammond

Is it honorable and OK for him to [B]break his promise and go back on his word not to post anymore

Question:

Originally Posted by Bearislandmoose

Are you guys going to use the same passion to have your Eagle Island (Bourgeoious) NWZ repealed because it too was "put through under the radar"? I've asked this several times and you guys keep changing the topic and using red herring responses to name-call and turn the discussion into one about me. Just answer yes or no.

Answer:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

And I'll see your true colors
shining through
I see your true colors
and that's why I love you
so don't be afraid to let them show
your true colors
true colors are beautiful
like a rainbow

Need I say more? That favor you guys did for Bourgeious after he gave all that money to your last version of this group, NHRBA, seems to be an embarrassing topic now, no? Working "under the radar" to get a personal NWZ in front of his house, in an area that had never had a problem and was far less of a safety concern than the BP, so that this contributor to the anti-SL group du jour could have peace and quiet when he was not out destroying everyone else's peace and quiet, is starting to look like it was a bad idea. "Let's not let him bring that up. Let's change the topic every time he mentions it. Let's pretend we had nothing to do with that. That was when we called ourselves NHRBA, but we call ourselves SBONH now, so let's deny we even remember doing that. Let's call him names and sing Cindy Lauper songs whenever he mentions it". Nice try.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by winni83

“Obviously, there has been a death among the deities and APS, SOTD, TB, BI, El-C et. al. have been appointed to determine infallibly what is reasonable and civilized for us all, whether it be speed, horsepower, size or type of boat, no wake zones or whatever else annoys or disturbs them from time to time.”

I support those who won't use their boat to kill others.

Originally Posted by VtSteve

You've read many outright lies posted in these various threads, and made many a misstatement of your own.

An opportunity appeared on the previous page in which to address any "misstatements".

However, every one of SBONH-NHRBA's operatives overlooked that opportunity.



As I am for "equal-opportunity" at forums, I am compelled to repeat that previous phrase once again:

Originally Posted by Bearislandmoose

That favor you guys did for Bourgeious after he gave all that money to your last version of this group, NHRBA, seems to be an embarrassing topic now, no? Working "under the radar" to get a personal NWZ in front of his house, in an area that had never had a problem and was far less of a safety concern than the BP, so that this contributor to the anti-SL group du jour could have peace and quiet when he was not out destroying everyone else's peace and quiet, is starting to look like it was a bad idea. "Let's not let him bring that up. Let's change the topic every time he mentions it. Let's pretend we had nothing to do with that. That was when we called ourselves NHRBA, but we call ourselves SBONH now...

If the below photo is the subject of the "peace and quiet of the personal NWZ at Eagle Island", I don't think we're currently discussing the right "Bourgeoious".

(Or "Bourgeious".)

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words, and just look'n at this picture helps the casual observer to maybe understand why performance boating can get into one's blood, and be such a highly addictive fun-time hobby. The photo helps to answer the question: Why do some simply have 'the need for speed?'

[ApS]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words, and just look'n at this picture helps the casual observer to maybe understand why performance boating can get into one's blood, and be such a highly addictive fun-time hobby. The photo helps to answer the question: Why do some simply have 'the need for speed?'

I can fully understand the "need for speed".

But I bothered to have the medical checkups, the training, the eyesight exams, the experience, the head-gear, the body-gear, the inspections, the organizational excellence, the exacting locations and the overwhelming safety considerations for those speeds—which in most cases didn't see the extreme speeds showcased on Winnipesaukee.

Having "first-hand" observations of extreme speed on Lake Winnipesaukee is never what I had in mind.

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

I can fully understand the "need for speed".

But I bothered to have the medical checkups, the training, the eyesight exams, the experience, the head-gear, the body-gear, the inspections, the organizational excellence, the exacting locations and the overwhelming safety considerations for those speeds—which in most cases didn't see the extreme speeds showcased on Winnipesaukee.

Having "first-hand" observations of extreme speed on Lake Winnipesaukee is never what I had in mind.

Looks to me that the obeserved speed is approx. 45mph.

[Bearislandmoose]

Originally Posted by Ryan

What happened?

I was asked to come back by one of your gang;

Originally Posted by Hammond

Wonder how .. El Chase ... will try to spin this success.

This was the final straw in a long line of taunts by those who had been unwilling to debate me when I was posting before, but saw my promise to abandon as an opportunity to take shots at me and keep dropping my name. My continued silence would have been risking the wrong impression. Interesting that this guy/gal Hammond (probably a fake name) had never engaged me before, and has not engaged me since. He is apparently the type who likes to kick a guy in handcuffs.

A combination of having lost my elchase password and the desire to start anew led me to create a new screen name..it was simply easier than asking for a new password, and it gave the opportunity to make that covert post and show OCD for who he really is. And I had gotten tired before of being the only person on this forum who was brave enough to post under his real name, and had regretted doing that once people from your side started "investigating" me and going back and forth to "make big wakes" in front of my home.

My problem had been with the editing of my posts by the moderator, the back-breaker being one on this very topic that was edited in a way that turned its intent completely around, causing others to think I was saying the exact opposite of what I had actually written. I did not want to continue posting under such uncertainty. But I was not aware that the moderator was going to start this unmoderated forum, and I feel this is exactly the kind of forum that a debate with the likes of your gang needs. We get to see how vulgar and primitive you all can be, and I get to express my thoughts without waiting three days for them to show up, and then find that they have been changed. I'm enjoying this much more than ever.

I do not consider this to be the forum that I swore out of...the moderated forum. Please know though that I will honor my pledge to remain out of that one...unless you guys taunt there too.