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? :D

I saw him there and couldn't figure out what he was doing. When he got there there wasn't any rafts, or many boats at all, so he wasn't enforcing the NRZ. If he looked under the bridge he could enforce the NWZ on the Weirs side. Looking towards Saunders, he could enforce 150' rule regarding the bridge or some boats, but by then you would see him.

I guess you saw a lazer to catch boats exceeding 45 MPH as they approach the bridge and a bunch of anchored boats. Anyone doing that would be bonehead.

And what about SBONH? Check out their website at http://www.sbonh.org

Legislative Update

CALL TO ACTION!!


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

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

Oh yeah. They're the majority. 10 to 1 emails in favor of a SL. Four times as many signatures as SBONH. Bipartisan overwhealming majority votes in the House and Senate pro SL. Enough said.

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

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

Thank you
 

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

TB, Thanks for posting the link! ;)

My angst was directed at DaveR's rather arrogant and sarcastic statement:
"As far as I know, they are no longer active now that the lake "feels safe" and there are no longer any collisions, drownings or sinkings"

Though I do realize he was just trying to stir the pot.

from around here, NOT!
 

[QUOTE=VitaBene;135126]Are ALL of the community-organizers in SBONH, carpetbaggers? :eek:
http://www.sbonh.org/update.php

[QUOTE=Gavia immer;135138]I find it amusing that the only way you feel you can smear the orgainzation is to find the only tab that has not been updated on the entire site.

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

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

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

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

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

Also I don't see why SBONH was even brought up in this discussion. The question was directed soley at a different group. Why feel the need to include an organization that is currently working to improve safety? Our membership has such a variety of boats, Pontoon boats, fishing boats, bow riders, Sea Doos etc... And at last count I believe we only have 3 captains that own boats that you would classify as GFBL boats, so please again take your misdirection elsewhere.

[QUOTE=Gavia immer;135138]Looks like they all have NH in their address. The lake belongs to all the citizens of NH.

Besides I thought when someone wanted to disparage, belittle or denigrate someone else based solely on geography, the term flatlander was used.:D

SO are the GFBL's saying it's OK to make disparaging remarks about the WinnFabs site but when someone answers back that the SBONH site needs updating as well then it's not? A bit of a double standard here.

Ok
 

[QUOTE=Gavia immer;135138]Do you mean are we all non-natives of the lakes region or the true definition (Yankees who moved south after the Civil war)?

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

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

So Gavia, what is your background? Like I said it does not matter, so if you want to join us...

OK Lets Get Back on Topic
 

This thread has gone off topic.

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

OK - I will get off my soap box now. :D

No reports from the hearing? :confused:

Maybe just cut to the chase... What is Winnfabs doing these days? What have they done THIS SEASON to increase the overall safety, education, and awareness on the lake? It's seems that they've been rather dormant.

If you're a fan or a member of Winnfabs, then please post some pertinent info regarding the organization. If the best you can do is more misdirection and non-specific ranting, you might as well save the keystrokes because you're not fooling anyone.

Since you asked...Winnfabs was established to establish a speed limit for the lake in response to concerns of the economic health, equal access, safety, and noise issues on the lake. This mission was achieved when the SL passed. Many people felt a speed limit was important as seen in the 10:1 emails/letters sent in favor of SL's, 4:1 petition signatures in favor of a SL (and these were hard copy in state signatures, not online one's from all over the country/world), a NH poll showing a majority of NH citizens favored a SL, and the fact that there was an overwhelming bipartisan support from both houses in Concord. It makes this Winnfabs fan laugh when the anti SL crowd on this forum keeps referring to themselves as the majority.

we have been looking at camps on Cow and this will be a huge factor if we buy or look at other islands. would love to hear the out come??

For once, I agree w TB. People interested in safety without fluff should really check out their website.

WinnFabs Purpose
 

Perhaps WinnFabs did not accurately state its corporate purpose when it filed Articles of Agreement with the NH Secretary of State. The first stated purpose is "To educate the public on boating safety".

Check out their web site under..."why a speed limit?"

WinnFabs Purpose
 

I have no interest in its web site. Just the documents it filed publicly stating the purposes for which it was organized under the laws of the State of New Hampshire.

Sorry to burst your bubble but you kind of glossed over part B and C of your document.

No Bubble to Burst
 

It is not my document. It is WinnFabs.

If you would kindly look at the attachment included in my post you will see the complete listing of the purposes. I accurately stated the first purpose and included in my post the attachment.

Being new to this, I was not able to determine how to post the attachment as an insert and if you truly feel that was misleading, my apologies. Perhaps someone with more skills than I can post that in full.

Which one of those missions was achieved by the SL? The local economy is poor, the accident rate on Winnipesaukee is way up, access to the lake has been reduced, and there are still plenty of people complaining about noise, yourself included. Seems like everything got worse or remained the same at best. Now NWZs are being proposed, presumably because the Winnfabs solution failed.

You are entitled to your opinion. Mine is that things improved by a quantum leap last year. As far as NWZ's, clearly some are needed as some on this thread have agreed. And I would add that another reason for NWZ's is all the people who brag in one way or another that they ignore SL's. Again, the few ruining it for everyone. And who could blame people for wanting boats to slow down when you have people like Shreddy (already been chewed out on this site) bragging that they love their toys loud and have no plans to conform to noise limits.

TB,

I have a simple question for you... How come I never see Winnfabs active out in the public trying to educate and endorse people about safety on the lake....

Thanks.....

Yeah got it,

Winfabs achieved their goals and some people like it and some don’t. It's called "The Law That Can't be Mentioned" for a reason. This thread is completely

:offtopic:


Let’s move on,

Is there a finding from the hearing?
Did NHMP endorse the proposed no wake zone?

You're right and I will drop it and move on, especially since my recent disclosure to OCD (posts #12, 16 under thread Donzi Run 7/31/2010) that I recently saw an article suggesting that GFBaLity may not be a choice, people are born that way. I've been too harsh and need to get with the times!:look:

Back on topic
 

From the Granite State News:

Petitioners for a no wake
zone 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
were successful
following a hearing on July
16 at the Old Town Hall with
the Department of Safety.

From reading on the Cow Island Web site this NWZ petition was submitted in 2008 and was the 3rd in 27 years. The petitioners are seeking a no wake zone within the area described as located between the
southeastern tip of Little Birch Island and lot #17 on the mainland ( southern limit ) and lot #284 Cow Island and Lot #3 on the mainland (northern limit).

I have not heard or seen anywhere that a decision has been officially made yet.

JS, the article says they "were successful". I was kind of hoping someone might have more info on this like when it will happen etc...

The article does not say that an "official" decision was made. It says the petitioners were succesfull but does not specify the success. Without paying for online access to Granite State News I cannot read the whole article and I would hope that the full article would answer the question about a decision. BTW what was the publication date of the article?

I believe the public comment period ended July 24th and I find it hard to believe they have made a decision so quickly and according to the Division of Hearings web page a decision has not been made yet.

You can find the results of the Hearing here - when they are posted: http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/h...craft2010.html

JS, that was the full article. The date of the paper is today, 8/05/2010.

Thank you for those who continually tried and brought this back on topic. I thought that this issue would be addressed based on the marit of the issue. This has a rather large impact on quite a few boaters North of the area in question. I will do what I can to find out more information from my sources. When the big "No Wake Sign" goes in I'll take pictures for the site :D

Hazelnut, they point out it will begin at Lot # X and finish at Lot # Y....

Do you know approximately where those are? The Size of the NWZ?

It's official
 

Barber’s Pole, Lake Winnipesaukee, Tuftonboro, NH - Pursuant to RSA 270:12, and Administrative Rule Saf-C 409, a petition was received dated May 10, 2010 requesting the establishment of a No Wake Zone. C. N. Duclos conducted a public hearing on July 16, 2010 at the Tuftonboro Towne House in Tuftonboro, NH. Commissioner Barthelmes approved the petition on July 30, 2010.

Effective when? Anyone know?

I haven't been by there in years, I just have to go see this weekend. Just want to know if I'll see before or after.

It looks smaller on the satellite photos then I remember.

LARGE! Almost the whole narrow Channel. For example the Nav Aid at the Pole being one end and the other would be by the "Foxwood Boathouse" on the mainland and the closest point of Cow. It's a biggie.

Still not sure how I feel about this one. There are some big pluses for my property selfishly. Less erosion and less boat wake damage to my boats and docks. More recreation area in terms of Kayak and Swimming activity.
Drawbacks are numerous, every time I need to go to the mainland or the store is going to take longer but no big deal I'm in no real rush. Gone will be the fun of watching the chaos, :laugh: of tubers skiers and boaters trying to occupy the same space at the same time.

I'll report my opinions later.

DEJ - By official does that mean the state has approved it? What happens next? When would this be implemented?

Thanks
H-Nut

It is official as DEJ's post is a direct quote from the Hearing Committies Web Site. Effective date and implimentation (installation of markers) who knows at this point. A call to MP may answer that but keep your eyes open for new NWZ Markers.

BTW I was through there yesterday around 1:15 and it was very quiet.

Hold your horses everyone. :laugh:

I just got off the phone with an extremely helpful MP Sargent. He informed me that this issue now goes through the entire legislative process similar to the process that took place with the SL Law. So this issue is far from being over. The NWZ would not be put into place until next year at the earliest. As of now if you have an opinion one way or the other it behooves you to contact State Reps as they will be hearing this issue at some point in time.

If you are so inclined I am sure their will be a public hearing portion of the transportation committee as well.

I can not bring myself to a solid opinion on the matter as of yet. Although this directly affects me I have yet to decide the best result. Understand that I witness my boats being absolutely trashed during busy weekends. Selfishly I'd like to see it pass. However ideologically I do not like the idea of a law that targets such a tiny fraction of the overall boating season. Literally we are talking about a 24 hour period on summer weekends. All other times there is absolutely NO NEED for a NWZ in this area. I may recuse myself from further discussion due to conflict of interest with myself. :laugh:

H-Nut