*New Proposed No Wake Zone*

[hazelnut]

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

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

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

[OCDACTIVE]

How large is that area? seems a bit overkill... I would agree that one could be done right where it narrows before entering the broads, but the whole length seems a bit much.

[VitaBene]

That is a long NWZ. I will have to look at the chart but isn't that going to push people to use the "hole in the wall" with its shorter NWZ?

[Dave R]

That'll just make everyone go between Little Bear and Long Island and make a mess of the six pack area.

[OCDACTIVE]

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

But a small NWZ at the closest point is not such a bad idea.. Just my 2 cents.

[LIforrelaxin]

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

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

With Lake Traffic on the decline in my estimation I don't see the reasoning behind this move.

[Little Bear]

The passage between Little Bear and Long Island is more narrow that the Barber's Pole area and is already congested on busy days. At one time (in the 70's I believe) this was a no-wake area, so unfortunately if Barber's Pole becomes no-wake then I'm afraid the Little Bear/Long Island passage will also have to become no-wake. You can't put 10 lbs of crap in a 5 lb bag - it's already a bottleneck. Who dreams up these things anyway?

[TomC]

don't the YMCA camps use this area for water skiing/tubing/etc? If so, that will put a damper on that activity also. Its not like they can load up dozens of kids and take them elsewhere.

[cowisl]

If people followed existing rules, you wouldnt need a NWZ! My family has property on Barbers Pole and a majority of people do not know what 150' means!

[chocophile]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately, a no-wake zone might be needed.

[Lakegeezer]

When there is no problem 99% of the time, it is stupid to put in a new rule to address the 1%. As with other problem areas, existing rules apply. Going by a canoe at maximum wake is illegal. No need to impose restrictions on those boating during the week or in the off-months. If you are 150 feet from shore - there should be no restrictions on wake. Or, at least make the rule only apply on busy hours during summer weekends. The address to give the state input is in the first posting. Hopefully enough of us will take the time to give it.

[DEJ]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

When there is no problem 99% of the time, it is stupid to put in a new rule to address the 1%. As with other problem areas, existing rules apply. Going by a canoe at maximum wake is illegal. No need to impose restrictions on those boating during the week or in the off-months. If you are 150 feet from shore - there should be no restrictions on wake. Or, at least make the rule only apply on busy hours during summer weekends. The address to give the state input is in the first posting. Hopefully enough of us will take the time to give it.

Lakegeezer is right on the mark with his comments. No need for additional laws or restrictions since we currently have laws that address most every issue. I have been through this area when an MP boat was sitting off to the side just watching, it is amazing how many boaters all of a sudden know the laws when MP is around.

[Excalibur]

Originally Posted by DEJ

Lakegeezer is right on the mark with his comments. No need for additional laws or restrictions since we currently have laws that address most every issue. I have been through this area when an MP boat was sitting off to the side just watching, it is amazing how many boaters all of a sudden know the laws when MP is around.

Maybe on nice sunny weekends the marine patrol should anchor a few of there craft empty in some of the bonehead zones as a deterrent

I know a lot of local towns park empty police cruisers on the side of the road with a big teddy bear in it. Its effective in keeping everyone honest.

[Kracken]

Does NH Marine Patrol have a recommendation on this?

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

The Marine Patrol deemed a “No-Wake” zone was unnecessary. Educating boaters on the markers was the solution.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

When there is no problem 99% of the time, it is stupid to put in a new rule to address the 1%. As with other problem areas, existing rules apply. Going by a canoe at maximum wake is illegal. No need to impose restrictions on those boating during the week or in the off-months. If you are 150 feet from shore- there should be no restrictions on wake. Or, at least make the rule only apply on busy hours during summer weekends. The address to give the state input is in the first posting. Hopefully enough of us will take the time to give it.

I totally 100% agree. How many times must it be said... you CANNOT legislate responsibility?

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

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

While that stretch does see a fair amount of traffic it is hardly so narrow that two boats if properly driven cannot pass on plane safely and still maintain 150' off shore and eachother. If not the laws already exist to deal with those situations and I submit that if it's still a problem then I reference point a above and say what difference does another law make when it's a reality exacerbated by point b.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

I totally 100% agree. How many times must it be said... you CANNOT legislate responsibility?

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

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

While that stretch does see a fair amount of traffic it is hardly so narrow that two boats if properly driven cannot pass on plane safely and still maintain 150' off shore and eachother. If not the laws already exist to deal with those situations and I submit that if it's still a problem then I reference point a above and say what difference does another law make when it's a reality exacerbated by point b.

Agreed ! I was exiting the channel, headed out into the Broads and had 3 boats incoming towards me. I slowed a bit to let them sort themselves out and let everyone line up for a port-port pass. At that time Capt B came up "fast" behind me and then 20' off my stern slowed and then went to pass on my starboard. If he had bothered to look he'd have seen the other boats but alas boneheads is as boneheads do. But nooo, he went to pass, got along/ahead ofd me and then saw the other boats and then slowed to max wake speed only to cut 20' behind me again. Mee was more livid than I, I was a bit busy sorting out the incoming traffic. A NWZ there might have helped though who's to say Capt B would bother obeying that. What's not taught in any classroom is "situational awareness".

Then again who says Capt B can learn ....

[SBC]

Originally Posted by Little Bear

.... Who dreams up these things anyway?

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

I din't do it..did you?

[Little Bear]

Originally Posted by SBC

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

I din't do it..did you?

Nope, not me. We have enough rules to last a lifetime. We don't need any more, thank you.

[Greene's Basin Girl]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

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

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

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

Somebody proposed a new no-wake a few years ago up near Green's Basin. Many of us felt that we have enough no-wake zones in the area. We went to hearing and discussed our opposition. We ended up winning. That was the end of that!

[Lake Fan]

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

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

[JTA]

Most of the problems in the area are on Saturdays and Sundays for a few hours each day (I have a place in the area). The Marine Patrol could make a living by hanging out there and enforcing the huge number of boating law violations that occur. The biggest problem occurs from the HUGE wakes left by the very large cruiser-style boats that plow water. These boaters are the rudest group on the lake. Are they unaware of the large waves created by their wakes or do they just not care?

[Kracken]

Originally Posted by Lake Fan

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

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

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

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

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

He was towing 2 tubes with three children on each tube between Little Mark and the east shore. There where also only 3 people onboard. When I saw this I slowed down to 15 mph and stayed about 300 yards away directly behind the tubers. The entire time the people on the boat were waving their arms back and forth like I was doing something wrong. I did not attempt to pass them because the Admiral was driving so erratic, I couldn’t tell which way he would turn next. Once they finally cleared the Bay I overtook them to their starboard at about 300 feet only to hear their profanities and receive the official solute of the Bonehead Navy.

[hazelnut]

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

Interesting for sure.

[Lakegeezer]

The deadline for written responses to the state about this issue is this Friday, June 23'rd. It is unclear if email is accepted, but the department of hearings email address is safety-hearings@dos.nh.gov if you want to try that route. I did.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

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

Interesting for sure.

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

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

From my stand point is that once that NWZ is in place the cut between little bear and Long Island will become busier and result in another NWZ after a few years.... thus dividing lake... I am just not sure I want to see that....

[Irrigation Guy]

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

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

I sure hope this doesn't pass.

[Just Sold]

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

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

I also agree with Hazelnut: "Be carefull what you wish for".

[Misty Blue]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misty Blue

[Little Bear]

Interestingly enough, I have an old lake chart (circa 1973) that shows the passage between Little Bear and Long Island (near FL # 10) as a no-wake zone. I wonder when and why this was ever changed? Anyone know?

[OCDACTIVE]

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

I would like to just bring up a discussion topic.

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

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

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

Again just my thoughts... I wanted to see if anyone else shared these?

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

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

I would like to just bring up a discussion topic.

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

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

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

Again just my thoughts... I wanted to see if anyone else shared these?

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

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

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

SOTD, take your agenda elsewhere.

Where's a valid reason for moderation when you need one.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by jmen24

SOTD, take your agenda elsewhere.

Where's a valid reason for moderation when you need one.

Geez...getting a little hot under the collar there or what. You could take a few pointers from OCD in terms of moderating your posts. I may sometimes disagree with OCD but his posts are ALWAYS civil. Or are you trying to get this thread shut down ?

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Geez...getting a little hot under the collar there or what. You could take a few pointers from OCD in terms of moderating your posts. I may sometimes disagree with OCD but his posts are ALWAYS civil. Or are you trying to get this thread shut down ?

OCD, is very good at taking a baited hook, removing the barb, enjoying the snack and leaving the baiter to wonder why they didn't catch anything.

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

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

SBONH is attempting to make a difference in the safety of Lake Winnipesaukee through education and by focusing on the real issues of concern on the lake. I applaud his efforts and those of SBONH for stepping up to the plate in the manner that they have to deal with the issues that were and are still present on the lake.

[OCDACTIVE]

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

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

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

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

As you can see it is very difficult to make a decision based on the discussions here. I would be in favor of pushing the vote and having a more public "Publizied" hearing where more of all those effected as well as all boaters can voice their opinions. We have to look at this from all angles, not just from a few property owners that want to decrease wakes.

[DEJ]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

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

How about the group that you support SOTD, why not call out Winnfabs to also support this NWZ? Or are they just a one issue group?

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by DEJ

How about the group that you support SOTD, why not call out Winnfabs to also support this NWZ? Or are they just a one issue group?

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

[DEJ]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

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

Let me see, someone can suggest SBONH might be a one issue group, I suggest winnfabs might be a one issue group, then we get the TB response which has nothing to do with this discussion other than try to stir the pot. Now that we have that little distraction out of the way, back on topic.

I sent in my comments on this matter and hope many of you here did so also. It will be interesting to see what the outcome is.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

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

TB... Lets not go down this path... I agree with you that the winnfabs are a "one issue" group, But lets not discuss the neauances of this. Lets just agree to disagree there and stay on the topic of the NWZ.

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

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

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

Does anyone have a good remedy for nausea?

[upthesaukee]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Does anyone have a good remedy for nausea?

Easy remedy for this type of nausea: the ignore button.