Again a misrepresentation, by you, of the actual facts. The people who sent letters were primarily from two families and some were renters of the cottage on Squirrel. Hardly representative of the residents of the Barbers Pole. Again SOTD you forget that I have a house there, that I actually have the facts. None of my neighbors were represented in those comments as none of my neighbors knew of the hearing until well after it was over. Also many of the residents of Tuftonboro Neck were not represented as proven by the gentleman who came over to my house two weekends ago circulating a petition for an additional hearing. He and several of his neighbors were expressing the same frustration with the lack of notification. Many of my neighbors and I are now in communications discussing our opinions on the matter and what our next step is. Many are remaining silent as there is a "catch 22," that I am very aware of. Many of us who actually live along the strip have this little voice in the back of our heads saying, "hmmmmm it would be nice not to have the wave action during the weekends."

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

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

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

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

Thank You

It truly is a small world isn't it?

It's called honesty. The people that live there that have commented, are not getting emotional because of a NWZ, not at all. They are getting exited because most didn't know anything about the petition or hearing, and they think that most of the submitted information is a crock.

Most people can see that they are very upfront with their comments, and are still pondering this issue, and discussing this with their neighbors. That is, the ones that really do live there. No "Histrionics" at all, these people have some character, respect the rights of others, and feel that everyone should operate that way. Now, they all know what, and whom they're dealing with.

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

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

Who else is of the opinion that the needs of the few are outweighing the needs of the many here?

ON the Fence is a Dead Body...?
 

This is the fourth attempt at a Barber Pole NWZ: some became
com-pla-cent. :rolleye2:

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

:confused: Umm...after some "emoting", didn't the quote go...

:confused: :confused:

Umm...any new No-Wake Zone puts the exhaust in the water—right where NH's newest noise-law is to measure it.

Something many here wished for... :rolleye2:

I read the letters—raising of the night-time limit did affect lake residents' opinions.

Something many here wished for... :rolleye1:

Be careful what you wish for... :rolleye1: :rolleye1:

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is getting ridiculous. :rolleye2:

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

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

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

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

Anybody who opposes this NWZ is not anti-safety. The merits of the case needs to weighed, including concerns of the abutters and the general boating public. You can't leave it solely to the abutters, the lake is a playground and a means of transportation, both needs must be met.

The Thanks Button is on the fritz?

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

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

HN and others were told that they were ignoring other's concerns. This thread points out what's really happening.

Please stop alluding to what "groups" should and should not do. If you feel a group should do something, join that group and have a say, or start your own.

But continuously trying move an agenda through open ended statements and conjecture isn't helping the situation you apparently feel so strongly about.

Ok, I'll try again. I've even read the letters and testimony again. We are talking of an area with a width of 390' between buoy and Squirrel Island. Put a raft or a swimmer out there, say 150' off shore and the legal area between swimmer and buoy is 90'. My point, clearly this is a narrow area and similar to other NWZ's in width. Take a look at the Farm/Chase NWZ for example. Saying "If the method is anyone who can gather 25 signatures gets a NWZ, then pretty quickly the whole lake becomes a NWZ" is simply being inflammatory because clearly this is not how it works and you know it. The procedure goes from obtaining signatures to scheduling a hearing to hearing testimony to writing letters in support or against. Then the decision is made by the authorities weighing all of the facts and testimony. It is not a decision left solely to the abutters.
To answer your question: "So we need a meaningful method to decide where to put NWZ. What method would you suggest?" , the answer is as clear as the procedure outlined above which you were already aware of. And then to suggest that somehow this process will turn the whole lake into a NWZ is simply preposterous and again inflammatory nonsense. This sky is falling mentality is all too familiar to me from previous debates. And this is also why I feel some of the arguments but forth by some like HN and VtSteve are somewhat disengenuous and comes from the mentality held by some that a boat only has 2 speeds, stop and full throttle. There seem to be about forty responses in the posted NWZ document in favor of a NWZ yet HN seems to have put forth that this whole NWZ could be the result of the people in that little house on Squirrel island who go across the channel in their small boat. Are we to believe there are forty families in that little house? Oh Calcutta, call the board of health:).

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

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

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

If the need is obvious, why not wait until the all the interested parties are heard from? The MP is not going to get the zone setup and marked before next season, so what's the hurry? Why not let the people be heard?

One good thing that I can think of, since it will be a no wake zone, A NEW RAFTING AREA !! SOTD, which house is yours, I'll throw a anchor and have a cocktail with you. :D

So in theory.

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

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

I think that sums up the current process and I as a non-lakefront property owner, could start all of this on a wim and at my choosing.

Address?
 

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

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

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

Yes I do believe that is it. Also, I think it is supposed to go through the whole Statehouse process as well. Thanks for posting the information. I really hope we get big numbers out on this one. This has far reaching affects on many people that use the lake. Not just the tiny fraction of us that live in the area. So again I really appreciate you helping to publicize this. If you could please spread the word and get some letters written from anyone and everyone. We don't want this to slide under the radar. We want as many voices to be heard on this.

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

Thanks again el. If I find out any further information regarding hearings and such I will post it here.

New Commissioner
 

Hi bud,

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

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

Regards

Hmmmm...reading some of the letters sent to the DOS in support of a NWZ...well it just seems to me that any reasonable person reading these concerns of the people who live there....how could you not agree to a NWZ. And as mentioned above...390'...that's narrow. And it is not unreasonable to suggest that any individual or group who is safety minded would support such a measure. That's just common sense.

A break?
 

Great day for a break with this weather and all.

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

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

Bravo Don! and Thanks

I seldom turn down an opportunity for cocktails. Pick me up at my dock. I have a friend in the BP and if I showed up in my easily recognizable boat and anchored then I would be in hot water with both sides in this NWZ argument:laugh::laugh::laugh:.
BTW not sure I could ever be happy living in the BP...way too much loud fast boat traffic funneling through such a narrow area. :laugh:

question
 

So, where does it leave those who frequent the lake, but have no lakefront property? Do not the residents of this state have any legal say in this matter?

Against my better judgement I will respond...

1. Again please see above regarding the cross section of the people who wrote into this "secret" hearing. This was an extremely biased group, not to mention from a first hand account (hazelnut) these letters came from many people at the same house. No one is arguing for or against the NWZ only for a fair hearing from all residents in the area and those effected.

2. Any arguement can be made for safety when dealing with water and moving objects. Boating is inherently a danger upon itself. A human can not breath underwater. If a boat fails there is a danger that a person may be immersed in said water and not be able to breath. So I guess any group that advocates boating is against safety??? :confused: Do you see how narrow minded your arguement can be? seriously???

3. Anyone that reads biased opinion and doesn't have the facts nor data can easily be convinced there is a safety issue, when there isn't one in the first place. (where have we heard that before!)

4. Arguing a group isn't for safety is plain inflamatory. We can not all be perfectly protected in every circumstance on the entire lake. To believe this would ludicrous... What we need to do from a safety stand point is to utilize resources where safety problems exist and impliment them to the best of their ability. Also to educate boaters so less problems exisit in the first place so less resources are needed.

We can not continue to implement more and more rules, regulations, laws, etc etc and just expect the problem to be fixed. If people aren't aware of these regulations due to lack of education we have not solved a thing.

Please stop arguing what groups should and should not do in the name of safety unless you are willing to get involved or start your own group.

It is easy to stand back and say how a house should be built but much more difficult to grab a hammer and actually do it!

Why do you have to be a property owner to write a letter? I think anyone can send a letter or even sign a petition

TB,

Thanks so much for your concern. We are ok as of right now. All is well in the BP area. The only issue I have is large wakes. My children swim freely without fear and I kayak and float freely on my blow-up lounge chair. :laugh: Seriously next time you are boating through the area I am the guy on the bright orange blow up float that resembles a recliner. Stop by and say Hi. I can assure you that there is PLENTY of room for all to enjoy the area.

I am a very reasonable person as are the many people who live in the area. We are considering an interesting proposal for a NWZ. Heck if it passes I'll have tons more room to float out in my bright orange barca-lounger. :laugh:

Honestly though all kidding aside, the safety issue is silly to bring up. The BP area has a sparkling record of safety. No collisions, no deaths, heck not even a close call for that matter. The beauty of the area is that it is a straight shot with a generous amount of room for two boats to safely pass each other traveling in opposite directions. This isn't a blind corner like the NWZ near BI's house. I for one applaud the implementation of that NWZ as well as the one at Governors and Eagle, heck I can just go around the other side of Eagle if I'm in a hurry.

If I was a selfish man I'd be on my rooftop clamoring for a NWZ in front of my house, you should see the beating my boats take on a busy Saturday. It is maddening. I can't afford a boat lift on my measly teacher's salary. :( Anyway, I am extending an invitation to you and SOTD, actually anyone who is interested, to come by my house #65 Yellow Cape, and hang out on Saturday for the afternoon, for a cocktail, or mocktail if you are driving, to witness the "madness" :laugh:. Common sense tells me you will decline as you might be too scared to pilot your vessel through this "dangerous area" ;). Either way the offer stands. I'd love to have you guys over. My twin 6 year old boys and my 3 year old daughter will be the ones swimming in front of my house :eek: oh the horror. :laugh: Just be careful not to run them over. I often fear for their safety in this scary dangerous area. :emb:

Why would you think otherwise? These hearings are open to the public, well that is when you find out about them. Now certainly comments by those that are property owners in the area affected may carry a little more consideration then anyone else, but that certainly doesn't mean that your opinion doesn't matter. Whether or not it'll weigh into any decision made is anyone's guess.

For the length of this discussion I have refrained from not posting, not taking the bait so to speak, but the continued false statements and utter selfishness finally got to me.

Please, the Farm/Chase area you mention is not in any way comparable. If you are at all familiar with that area you would know that at least one half of that channel is full of rocks. Consequently, the true navigable portion is much less than 150 feet.

Please, SOTD, this kind of grossly misstating the facts is what bothers so many of us. I looked at the petition and the names of people I know who are in the Winter Harbor/Wolfeboro area surprised me. These people barely know where the Barber Pole is and do not do any boating north of it. Those of us in areas such as Chase Point, Melvin Village, Bald Peak, 20 Mile Bay, Winaukee, Moultonborough Bay, Suissevale, Balmoral, Buzzell Cove, Tanglewood/Crosswinds, Langdon Cove, Wentworth Shores, Richardson Shores, Toltec, Arcadia, Greens Basin, three marinas (Ambrose Cove, Lanes End, and Melvin Village), plus five public launches, and several private association launches would all be adversely effected by your NWZ. What about the boat(s) going to places like the huge YMCA facilities on Sandy Island? Do you really think those boats are going to go through your NWZ at headway speed? They make large wakes at speeds just above headway speed.

Sorry for such a long post. Hazelnut, I cannot applaud you enough for your rational and unselfish discussion of the issues. You cannot be commended enough for your refusal to go along with a small number of people with personal agendas.

Where is the Barber's Pole?

Consulting Edmund Burke...
 

Thanks to this discussion (and a check of my chart), I see that the BP NWZ area has always been in easy reach of my neighbors and me. :look: If the new NWZ moves "hurried boaters" to the other side of Little Bear Island, a very large area west of Tuftonboro Neck will allow peaceful boating for everyone. :coolsm:

Some individual or group could get mud on their faces. Cue a famous Edmund Burke quotation here:
1) Read the letters: some writer's families have been there since the mid-1800s. :cool:

2) We forget that renters are supporting a local economy, while miles of Lake Winnipesaukee have huge McMansions that are empty. :(

3) What happened to "This Lake is for Everybody". :confused:

BTW: One of those letters includes somebody—in opposition—whose nearby island includes a NWZ. :confused:

Yup... C'mon over—tie up to my dock... :)

Just be sure that your boat size is greater than the wakes' crests, so it won't hit bottom while we're working out the details of your petition. :rolleye2: :eek2: :eek:

APS: now there is a selfish response, wanting new no wake zone for better sailing. Picture from foul weather day too, likely from another location. :(

I would check the area between Farm and Chase again. Clearly the distance between the buoy and Chase is much wider than 150' and is comparable in width to the area in the BP between Squirrel and the buoy. And as for all the suffering imposed on residents to the north (slowing down for 2 minutes) I also am impressed with the issues put forth by the residents of Squirrel and L. Birch Isl. who have to deal with this all the time. That's my take on your utter selfishness comment.

As far as OCD's comments about groups supporting this NWZ: "Please stop arguing what groups should and should not do in the name of safety unless you are willing to get involved or start your own group. ", that's just plain silly. Many of us have been involved...but we choose which groups to associate with. And there is indeed a precedent for safety groups supporting a NWZ. The Eagle/Governor's Island NWZ was supported by NHRBA.

Discussion
 

I would like to ask the question again.. What would be so bad about a NWZ in that area? Please list your reasons for not wanting it. Besides the standard less laws is better statement.
I happen to live in a NWZ.. and I have a boat capable of easily breaking the speed limit..Just wanted to get those facts in the open so I dont get thrown in that pot.

I would suggest that anyone with a video camera go to the area in question and take some footage, and post it here on the You Tube channel. Tomorrow or Friday would be nice for quiet weekday footage, then, Saturday.

Please, no Mushers :laugh:

If you are involved I applaud you whichever group you are associated with. My contention was that many stand on the sidelines and say what groups should be doing without actually being part of them.

I for one think that we are going down a slippery slope with NWZs in general.
There are certain areas of the lake that are and have been NWZ for ever. For example small coves where there would be no natural wave or wind action, or where there is an obvious and I mean obvious to EVERYONE of an issue regarding safety and or less than 150 ft. Otherwise if its 150 ft or more we dont need NWZs. Lets face it, wind, waves, and boats cause the lake to get rough sometimes, but is this really a reason to start plunking down NWZs in places that have survived just fine with out them for decades? And while we are on NWZs, the worst one is the eagle/governors...theres more wakes within that zone on a busy sat or sun than before they implemented that one.

Agreed Classic.. However I kinda enjoy coming out of eagle now.. I personally love the wakes. OCD rarely gets to use her hull for whats its designed to do on the lake: smashing through wakes. Those are one of the places due to the large wakes she performs brilliantly (at 45 mph of course)

Very good post and there's one more reason FOR a NWZ that has to be considered. People have bragged on this forum and others that they regularly break the SL on Winnipesaukee. We have even had the president of SBONH last year brag on this forum of how he "almost doubled" the speed limit( I hope Sunset's friend in the BP brings that one up if there's a rehearing). And of course people tend to tweak any SL, water or highway. So getting back to the narrow area between the buoy and island...it's been noted that boats scream through there just 150' from this small island...45 MPH?, 55 MPH?, 65 MPH? My wife has commented in the past when going through the BP "Boy, I wouldn't want to live on that island". And I can't imagine boats coming by my house that fast. Now I hear it coming..."why not enforce the laws we already have?" to which Sunset's Al Capone analogy would apply.
As far as the "under the radar" comments I don't blame the BP residents one bit not wanting people from all over the lake weighing in on their "horrible inconvenience" when it's the residents of the area who have to live with this all the time. So much for boating etiquette. And when I see the shameless way that boaters from all over the country were invited to sign the SBONH petition with comments like "Your lake could be next" on forums like offshoreonly.com I tend to side with these people in the BP even more.
And one more reason to support a NWZ. We have heard from those who wish to abolish a SL on the lake. If there were no SL boats could legally tear through this narrow area at 70 MPH. Now I think it's unlikely that the SL could ever be abolished given the strong support seen on both sdes of the aisle but it's just one more reason to support this NWZ. I also wonder how likely a new hearing on the NWZ is. My guess is that the DOS would take the position of "hey, it was published in local papers and on the T'boro web site, so tough. You snooze, you lose."

Hi Turtle,

Just so you know, OCD was referring to doubling the speed limit when he was out in the ocean, maybe it was Virginia but it was definitely not on Winnipesauke. I am sure it was an innocent mistake on your part.

I know OCD can speak for himself but he is limited on posts per day.

Have a good day, nice hearing from you again.

Littoral Rights
 

TB, are you saying that you "tweak" the speed limit? I have never exceeded the SL on this lake. I have gone through the BP on plane and at cruising speed, causing little wake. I have also encountered sailboats and canoes in the BP area and I slowed to NW speed (and created a greater wake when doing so)

What you don't get is that all of the taxpayers of NH own this lake. Littoral rights end at the waterline (perhaps BI can chime in on this, he has a firm grasp of that issue, or search for some of his posts on the matter). So those that abut the BP may have a greater vested interest in the area, they do not have more "rights" in determining what happens there.

What are you doing on offshoreonly? Got a little closet cowboy in you?

Besides that, ......The only way OCDs boat will do 90mph, is when he's going over Niagara Falls. :D :D :D NB

TB, please get you facts straight, I know that might be a stretch but I am going to try anyway.

OCD never stated he almost doubled the speed on Lake Winnipesaukee. More spin and your usual approach of outright lies is wearing thin.

Apparently there at least 40+ people who feel differently, and some who get the worst of the onslaught on the 2 smaller islands certainly could have an opinion different from HN's in his spot further back on the big island. I wouldn't like those boats tearing so close(as close as 150') to my house all day long. Saying that a NWZ is not needed does not necessarily make it the truth.