SOTD, Saying that a NWZ is needed does not necessarily make it the truth either.

To make an informed decision we need to hear from others as well as the folks in that immediate area, that is all some are asking here, what harm could that be? After all the lake is for the enjoyment of all NH residents, and they have just as much a say about this issue as the immediate BP property owners. Hope to see you at the appeal hearing if there is one. Hnut, can you please keep us current on that if you hear anything. Thank you.

[QUOTE=Turtle Boy;137994]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).



This is not a speed limit debate. You should put your head back in your shell. Like I have said before I live there and there's no speeding problem, and no noise problem.

I have an idea...lets make the broads a NO WAKE ZONE too. Surely some people go screaming by Rattlesnake Island at 45 mph and less than 150' from shore scaring people on the island and in row boats/kayaks/ and canoes. :rolleye2:

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. Moderating is one thing, but when a post gets edited in a way that has its intent reversed, it should say so.

Thanks Hazelnut for the thought, but you should know that my post was edited in a way that gave its meaning a 180. I can't say how much of this post gets through, but I won't be surprised if the only thing that shows up is "Thanks Hazelnut".

I support a NWZ at the Barber's Pole. Knowing that probably 9 out of every 10 people that write in will support it was the reason I provided the address. You few can take advantage, but I'm confident that many more will write in from my side. And in this case, letters coming in with postmarks from California, Washington State, Saskatchewan, Hong Kong, and Mickey Mouse will surely not get counted.

The point of my pre-edited post was to point out the irony and blatant phoniness of this opposition. It is so obvious as to be laughable how most of the group objecting to the BP NWZ is only doing so because some of the petitioners were supporters of another issue. This has nothing to do with safety, any slippery slope, or even the Barber's Pole. It is just an attempt at revenge.

Pretty much every one of this same small group was a member of NHRBA, who petitioned the state to have the waters just in front of your biggest contributor's McMansion made a personal NWZ. The arguments FOR that NWZ apply identically to this case, but ironically are being turned upside down here. Compare the situation when NHRBA (you all) was arguing for a NWZ at Eagle Island to benefit the guy who donated the most money to NHRBA's anti-SL efforts to the efforts here to quash a NWZ in a much more deserving area, full of less wealthy people who don't have $40K breakwaters to protect their boats and children. Compare the people posting here and writing to Safety now to oppose the BP NWZ to those who posted here and wrote in to support the Eagle Island NWZ. The hypocrisy is startling.

Webmaster,
Hopefully, you will put this post through complete and unedited. There is nothing in here that is worse or new compared to other posts on this thread, so I can see no good reason for you to block or edit it. If it does make it through, then I promise you I will never darken the door of this forum again. But if it is not to be posted in its unedited entirety, please just don't post it at all. Please don't put my name on things I did not write.

EL, you need to move on. NHRBA no longer exists. A new group has been formed, some former NHRBA members yes, many new members have joined as a result of the law you pushed so hard to get. They are looking to join a group dedicated to real safety and pass laws based on facts, not emotion or feel good legislation. I will miss you.

As others have implied, we really shouldn't need official "No Wake Zones". If people obeyed the headway speed withing 150', we wouldn't need them to be officially no wake.

Again, THANKS EL.

I appreciate your position and I appreciate the publicity on this matter. What part of my post wasn't clear to you? I am confused:confused:

I live in the area and I win in either scenario. If it passes I don't have to buy a boat lift. If it fails to pass then my commute to the island is not lengthened. I am paraphrasing for you because apparently you never read anything I ever wrote in this thread. It is pretty obvious to just about everyone else in this thread minus you, SOTD and TB, no surprise, that I stand to benefit from the passage of the NWZ.

My personal position is that I publicly do not support it due to the fact that it is not warranted. Selfishly I welcome it as my boats will no longer take a beating on the weekends.

It is so sad that you three continue to make this an us v. them argument and drag up tired old arguments from a completely separate issue. This is not the same thing. Remember this is essentially my back yard. I know what is going on every single weekend. I can assure you a NWZ is not needed in this area. However, if the majority of the boaters on the lake deem it so then I will accept it and reap the benefits of this change.

Again, EL I thank you sincerely from the bottom of my heart for publicizing this and hope that you continue to get the word out as I will. If all voices are heard and this passes I will feel much better about it. I am thoroughly disappointed in the process so far as a tiny, tiny minority comprising of two or three families snuck in a hearing under the radar without the rest of the abutters having any say in the matter. I would like to widen the scope and see people such as yourself and others here on this forum and the rest of the boaters on the lake have their say.

Thank you again.
HN:)

I can't even read through these posts anymore. So much garbage. I was elated this afternoon when the ban was lifted. .....Now I don't know what to say... :eek: ELCHASE...SUNSET..TURTLE...??? Give me a break. NB

PS: Did I miss someone......?

I know better then this but seriously....................

I had to change my ignore list just to see it for myself.. As quickly as he's back he says he is gone again.................. I think this is the 5th time around.... Lets see how long this lasts..

But just a correction. The "new" group that is being alluded to of course is SBONH... I think out of our entire membership which has grown profoundly, there are may be three NHRBA past members.. I would love to find out where this data is taken from..... Oh thats right data isn't needed... It "feels" like there are more then three.. :laugh:

Anyway, I hope that there is another hearing and I appreciate EL for posting the information to send in your request to ask for said hearing. I am sure when all area residents and those directly effected are heard from then a much more clearer picture can be drawn.

Again, I am not saying one is needed or not, but everyone should be given the chance to be heard.

Also I want to Thank TB for once again taking a post completely out of context.. Last year purchasing my boat I doubled the speed limit....................... in LONG ISLAND SOUND!!!... Any one know if I should let Gilford know about that? whats the penalty for doing something completely legal... Please........

P.S. No need to make up statistics or data about "groups" there are plenty of members here that would be happy to answer any questions with actualy facts.. That is if you are interested in that.

Hmmm... I was never a member on the NHRBA nor did I know that that group or offshoreonly.com existed until you or your band of merry men started posting about them.

You were edited because you are what you are- a stirrer of pots who adds very little value to this great forum.

Have a nice day and life, because I am pretty sure your post got through in its entirety.

Best regards!

Departure of EL
 

I will miss reading the creative and self serving fiction contained in most of the posts from this now departed member of the group of three.

Thankfully, the thread isn't about them, nor anyone else. It's about a proposed NWZ. We've yet to hear from real people with real names, nor see the video show of the area. We've heard from a couple of residents that don't think it's an issue to propose a NWZ, but maybe someone that owns a little island with rental units and a small boat does.

The bottom line is this. People that use vague language, and language that is meant to illicit fear and prompt action, always stand back and question. I'm sure many still want these issue to be shelved, and never hear the dialogue. Or would you just rather they change the lake as you sleep through it?

The big picture
 

Step back and take a look at the whole lake. Think of how many people would love to have a personal "No wake" zone in front of their house. Think about what you are really asking for. Think about how the lake will change with more rules and regulations. Think about what that would mean if you decided to take a 3 hour cruise around the lake and had to slow down to 5 MPH at 15-25 no wake zones. Is this what you really want?

There is not a single waterfront home that does not see the effects of rain, wind, waves, ice, snow, and boat wakes in the course of a year. It is a lake. These things happen, make an adjustment and move on. Life is too short!

People need to get over their "It's all about me" attitudes and live and let live.

I am a little confused by the need for some nwz. I can see it near a marina or other area where waves would be of exceptional concern. My difficulty is with the logic that some shore line is more special than other. That some swimmers need protection from boats and waves more than others. The existing rule of keeping 150 feet from shore and other boats seems like it would satisfy the need to protect all concerned. You don't have to be in narrow section of the lake to have people plowing 50 feet from the shore. Lets enforce the laws we have and stop adding more.

Ya, kind'a like enforcing a mandatory law what 'axes for the use of lawnmowers at local barber shops! :confused:

Laws are already in place! Lets enforce them first!

We all know only too well that the state has cut the NHMP's budget, and that there are some short hairs what want to build a whole 'nother world over here.

Now, keep this page open! WE will try to come out the other side!



Terry
_______________________________________

Smashing Renters...?
 

Nope. (and Nope "2").

Nope 1: That was a day of full-sun at my Lake Winnipesaukee cottage. ;) We've kept our tall hemlocks and giant white pines untrimmed, so the dock is often shaded in the late afternoon. The entire photo appeared HERE in the mooring whip thread.

Please note my use of "hurried-boaters" resorting to the Little Bear passage. They are the boaters I don't wish to have near me or any of my neighbors.

Nope 2: Peaceful boaters.

By "peaceful boating", I include about 90% of all Winnipesaukee boaters.

Of the other 10%, I use my silent signaling device—in a highly-gratifying directing of those 10% away from my intended passageway. (This device was previously nicknamed a "PED").

Sometimes, this warning must be given in behalf of nearby boaters and tubers in peril on the lake. :eek:

Nothing has improved my own boating enjoyment—and safety—more than communicating with other boaters in that way. :cool: Many regulars—mostly local ski-boats—have been "flash-conditioned" into giving proper way to all the boats along the two miles of shoreline that we share.

I like to think that the PED (and I) have lots to do with that. :)

Another writer—in opposition—lives in an adjacent NWZ. 'Any idea why this poster would deny a NWZ to shoreline dwellers at Barber's Pole? :confused:

Just as the NHRBA did two years ago, you have a ton of responsibility riding on your shoulders—take care—in any event. Have you yet read the advisory inside the smallest of your PFDs? :(

Why hasn't this PFD warning been fully documented on this region's most successful forum—and growing? :confused: That is one INFO-mercial all of Winnipesaukee's boaters could applaud! :coolsm:

BTW:
I once lived only a ten minute drive from the most famous designer of those boats. He was rubbed-out in a drug-based Mafia "hit". (Of which I know quite a bit :eek2: .)

His boats were designed for the dangerous waters directly in front of his shop. His boats (though slow by comparison to the "tunnel-hulls") are still very popular on The Ocean, and were not designed for inland waters.

elchase, just so you know, I am a member of SBONH, but was never a member of NHRBA even though I am strongly against speed limits on the lake.
I have no position regarding the NWZ here, as I am rarely in that area. I would defer my opinion to the impacted landowners. ALL OF THEM.

Nothing infuriates nasty people more than being nice :)

Hazelnut has stated his reasons for and against the NWZ in front of his place. I can well understand both sides. The thing that should worry people is that the reasons given For the NWZ by the usual group, are apparently false. Hazelnut does not view this as anything more than a win for him personally. But he's grown up enough to realize what it means for many other people.

That's the kind of person that the lake needs.

maybe its just me but....WOW!

Not what I heard!
 

I was with Bobby S. in Miami during February of this year. Bobby was a close personal friend of Don's and he is the one who pulled Don Aronow out of his Mercedes after he was shot. It wasn't about drugs! Sorry you misunderstood!

I thought with passing of the SL that this was not an issue anymore. I thought the lake was a much safer and serene place over the past 2 years?
What happened?:rolleye2:

El...your post was a breath of fresh air which "cut to the chase" (pun intended) in terms of what is going on behind the scenes. I intend to harass, implore, and cajole you to stay on the forum. It brought to Mrs. Sunset's mind a post you wrote a short while back that summarized what we're up against in terms of preserving the lake:

"A perfect example of why this loud little gang is losing its influence and privileges. This small group that talks so loud needs to linger on this forum to find soul mates...even during motorcycle week... there is simply no place else they can find peopel who think the way they do. All one needs to do to understand the mentality is to hear the argument above; "I put up with your quiet, so you should put up with my loud noise". The saddest part to me is that people from outside the region see this forum and might get the impression that these few jerks represent the attitude and personality of the people here...which could not be further from the truth. It's not "kind of sad"...its "very sad". "

Reading some of the testimony from the people who endure and experience what happens in the BP brings this into perspective.

Steve, I grew up watching the "NIMBY" attitude of people and it always sickened me to no end. In case anyone does not know what "NIMBY" stands for I will spell it out. "Not In My Back Yard=NIMBY" As I have approached 40 years old I am disgusted to see this attitude actually GROW!!!

These people supporting this NWZ are doing this solely for selfish personal reasons. They could at least come out and be honest about it. They won't though because the DOS wouldn't grant the NWZ, or would they? Anyway, I can assure every reader of this site and this thread that the truth of the matter is that a NWZ is not warranted in this area. I can not stress this enough.

There are 4 possible ways for people from the Northeast part of the lake to access the main body of the lake. 2 of those points are already NWZ's. Long Island Bridge, Hole-In-The-Wall. Currently we have two spots that are not NWZ's Point Sara (Between Little Bear and Long Island) and The Barbers Pole. Out of all these areas the Barbers Pole Channel is the widest, straightest, channel with more than adequate space to handle the traffic.

My only issue is the wake action that whips my boats around at the dock. I hate it. HOWEVER, I bought the house knowing FULL WELL that I was buying a house that sat in a busy channel that had large wake action on weekends. Therefore, I deal with it and I am not going to try to change the lake to support my narrow agenda. Instead I have grown to love watching the many boats pass by on weekends. I've probably seen almost every boater on this site pass through at one point or another. It seems that every 5th or 6th boats beeps and waves. Most I know some I probably know but don't recognize. We get a good laugh out of the tubers and waterskiers trying to use the channel on a Saturday. I can't tell you how funny that can be to watch. I will say though that everyone slows down and not once have I seen a close call. Just angry boaters forced to come off plain because someone is in the water waiting to ski or tube. :laugh:

All in all the channel is very safe and I and my neighbors have no problem swimming, kayaking, and boating in front of our houses. The Squirrel Island property is a small island that has hundreds and hundreds of feet of waterfront. As does Little Birch. The fact that any of these people are complaining about feeling unsafe is so silly I can not laugh hard enough at them. :laugh: Both of these Islands have areas on the backside close to Cow where the water is calm and no boats can access the area. Essentially they have private swimming areas on the back side of their islands. Yet, they want to swim in the channel.:confused::confused::confused::confused:
These people may need some psychiatric help. Please come visit me on Saturday, OCD might be swinging by. I will walk all of you through this area and show you the thousands of feet of swimming and recreation area these two Islands have that is away from the channel.

This is a plea to the membership of this site. Please sift through the rhetoric and make note of the people on this site that are trying to derail this discussion. Note that even though they "won" their cause they are still trying to divide and derail because they can not let it go. They are hung up on old arguments. This is not an us v. them argument. This is a completely separate and unique situation that has nothing to do with the old arguments.

I will disclose to you all that YES I am a member of SBONH. In fact I was a founding member along with many on this site. I was never a member of any other organization. This was my first. I happened to like Scott and his point of view. I can honestly tell you we don't sit around and collude on these items. In fact SBONH has no position on this issue and Scott and I have talked and he understands where I am coming from and appreciates why I might actually like a NWZ. He has been friends of my Island Neighbors LONG before I ever purchased my house so he knows the area just as well as I do and knows how the wave action can be frustrating to us and our boats.

Bottom line a NWZ is not warranted. A hearing was held, no neighbors were notified. All we want is a fair hearing where all points of view are heard. If the majority want it I will accept it and enjoy the benefits. If the majority does not want it then I will be happy that my commute to my vehicle won't be lengthened.

FYI-When I say all points of view I mean it. I hope the renters, boaters, sailors, kayaker's, swimmers, residents, non-residents all show up and give their opinions. I think Vita, Scott, LI and the rest of you need to rally your neighbors to have their voices heard on this as well. I know you guys live north of the area and will have to deal with this NWZ every time you go boating.

mirror mirror on the wall
 

I would like to quote something just posted but from my standpoint,there is a mirror facing these people.

"The saddest part to me is that people from outside the region see this forum and might get the impression that these few jerks represent the attitude and personality of the people here...which could not be further from the truth. It's not "kind of sad"...its "very sad". "

There is only one group of "a few jerks" represented on this forum that are far outweighed by the rest.Take off the blinders.

Videos
 

Hello,

Please note that the following videos were taken on a Saturday Morning BEFORE 11am. This is what I would refer to as the "Control." This is what the area looks like 90% of the time, including weekdays, and weekends. The other 10% of the time is what has sparked this controversial measure from being proposed. I will be on the lake this weekend on Saturday (Supposed to be a sparkling weather day) and I will videotape the busier times from 12-2pm which I consider to be peak time. Now, before you challenge me that I will only show the calmer times during this period, I invite any supporter of the NWZ to my house between 12-2 on Saturday to "keep me honest." My goal is not to paint a perfect picture. There are plenty of knuckleheads that pass through this channel. Trust me when I tell you I can not wait to capture the chaos. What will be left to determine is whether or not existing laws are being broken and greater enforcement is necessary. So without further ado I bring you "The Deadly Barbers Pole" on a typical Saturday Morning.


Proposed NWZ:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNPvKdE3HHE

Kayaking and Canoeing on a Saturday Morning:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3CK7impBxM

SOTD, I should be arriving at Hazelnuts house around 2 PM on Sat. I am taking him to drop off some Tshirts to some SL supporters and SL opposers. You are welcome to come and join us for the ride if you would like?

Thank you
 

Thank you for reminding us of why ElChase has been exposed for what he is!

Siksukr nailed it: Mirror, Mirror

Great Post
 

Chris,

This is one of the most thoughtful and well reasoned posts I have ever read on this forum. This IS not an us vs. them thing but for some reason there is a group on the forum that would like to portray it as being so.

Thank you for being honest and reasonable.

I think that's the diffence between the 2 groups. Some of the officers of SBONH as well as officers in Winniopposition (the ones listed on the left hand side of the Winniopposition page) seem to be chiming in against a NWZ. Definitely a conflict of interest and a group that was started to oppose the perm. SL might well be expected to do this. Safety?...this group is a wolf in sheep's clothing IMO. Reading some of the testimony from the BP residents, it seems to me too that they deserve this NWZ. All this talk about the whole lake becoming a NWZ is ridiculous as has been said. Not all areas of the lake are this narrow( ? did they say 400'). There are so many more boats than in the past and as the economy recovers they will increase further.
I'll eat my words about the wolf in sheep's clothing if SBONH were to support the NWZ but I can't see that happening.

That's a pretty silly statement to make TB. Pure facts, not lies and innuendo, have not made the case for a NWZ there. Believe it or not, not every area on the lake should be a NWZ, call me crazy.

Using the same type of BS, I could make a much better case for a NWZ from Sally's Gut all the way to the end of Meredith Neck and Stonedam Island. So if you don't support that one, you don't support safety? SBONH members look at each issue individually. There appears to be a very good discussion on every subject, and there are always two or more sides taken depending on the issue. None of you wishes to discuss this matter with Hazelnut, since you have no idea what to do if you can't be nasty.

The problem with trying to support your views and statements with lies, is that you're always bound to become inconsistent. One lie in one part of the lake seems to contradict another lie about another area. This NWZ argument has so many position inconsistencies, that I think you guys have to meet and craft some sort of position statement. The letters sent in, and your group's statements to support the NWZ could be picked apart by an eighth grader.

I would have assumed that El would have to be the foremost authority on virtually any area on the lake. This is a guy that logged over 1,000 hours during one of the worst boating summers ever.

I hope you're hungry
 

TB what part of no-commital do you not understand? If you read everyones posts here, especially Hazelnuts he has said he can see both sides of the arguement.

We have posted both the positives and negatives..

The one aspect that pretty much everyone here understands and agrees with, minus 3 people, is that we are not arguing for or against. We are arguing that people were not notified or were completely unaware of said hearing.

I don't want to speculate that this was the intention but it sure seems that way. Regardless of which side of the coin you are on for any argument, if you can get your side heard without others knowing then you come off as the majority.

Now I am not saying that those who want to the NWZ are "not" the majority, they actually may be... But we can only determine this by a hearing that has been publized to anyone and everyone that wants to be heard. Even your Comrade in arms EL realizes this, hence why he posted the contact information.

I am utterly confused why you are arguing any futher? I am confused why you keep bringing up sbonh in your arguement? We (sbonh) have taken a middle stance until all the facts and opinions of those who want to be heard are heard.

Perhaps you can use your energy in presenting your misdirection tactics to actually getting the word out about setting up another hearing. If you and friends are the sure that the majority wants the NWZ then awesome for you! Go out and have them petition for a new hearing and let their voices be heard.

Otherwise please go hide under your bridge until you can spout off some more false statements.

Take care buddy.

Smashing the Barber Pole with Tossed Renters...
 

If you'd been at ForumFest early, I could have demonstrated the PED to you—and any others concerned with boating safety.

:) It's a simple thing: it refects sunlight as a super-bright signaling device. :look: It's not expensive—as most are free parts, and are being recycled. :)

It doesn't cost anything, so it doesn't matter that it can't float. It promotes instant safety—sometimes at a threat one mile distant. :eek2:

You saw that I regard 90% of all boaters as "peaceful"? :cool:

That a larger part of the lake is opened up for boating recreation? :)

You do—or don't—acknowledge Renters...as People? :confused:

You think "Deep-Vees" are faster than "Tunnel-Hulls"? :laugh:

I'd really like to hear from LocalRealtor about my "fakery". :rolleye2:

Thanks for your assessment, anyway. :)

Bobby was long-gone when I became involved. :rolleye1:

Sorry you're not getting it.:rolleye2:

:look: I wanna see the part where BP wakes toss the Boston Whaler up on the dock!!! :banana: :look: :banana:

Safety
 

TB,

SBONH was formed to promote safety and boater education on NH's bodies of water including Lake Winnipesaukee. SBONH at no time opposed the SL but did advocate that the 2 year study period that was part of the original law be carried out.

Some members of SBONH may have opposed speed limits in general, primarily because they (I am one of them) felt that if efforts to enforce existing laws, such as the 150' rule, were enhanced the need for a SL would be negated. Those same boaters felt that the resources of the Marine Patrol had been stretched thin through budget cuts (the budget was subsequently raided again this year to the tune of $700K) and that their scant resources should not be spent in staffing speed traps on the Lake. I would prefer the MP spend their time ridding the Lake of reckless operators, OUI offenders, and those that violate the other important safety laws on the lakes and shore of NH.

SBONH looks at each issue individually, reasonably and prudently. I am proud to be a member of SBONH as well as an officer of the organization. I am proud of the work we have done with the LRPS to promote Vessel Inspections as well as some of the initiatives we are working on that have yet to be publicized.

We welcome ALL safe boaters as members regardless of whether they support SLs or not.

Here is my take on the NWZ (originaly posted on the Cow Island Forum)

My place on Cow is a bit north of buoy 17. I get to see all of the "action" there. The majority of the time there is no problem with boat traffic (of course there are always the Captain Boneheads). The main problem is for a few hours on each of the weekend days ... mostly folks not observing the 150' law. I don't think the area warrants a NWZ.

In addition, the worst wake problem (actually damaging) is caused by the large cruisers some of whom like to cruise at maximum wake-producing speed.
The biggest noise problem is caused by the few Formula-style boats who like our area because it is relatively calm; they like to let 'er rip when coming through.

Still, no NWZ is warranted.

(I am a neighbor to the north of Hazelnut and have been there for 35 years)

this really puts things in perspective
 

I'm posting the original petition submitted to DOS for the NWZ. you can't even make this stuff up. I have often wondered what the age of the three people that keep stirring the pot is, I suspect 70 plus with nothing better to do. I hope I have up loaded this correctly this is all very new to me

I'll be sure to post it. hahahaha Hasn't happened yet by Man oh man there have been times where I swear it was going to happen. :eek: Sometimes the waves crash over the patio and sweep a chair into the water. :(

To put this comment in context a bit more people should understand that JTA is a retired educator with several years experience on the lake. Notably as he said 35+ years with a house in this location. JTA has seen the growth in traffic, noise, boat population and he would know better than anyone on this forum whether the area warrants a NWZ. He is a couple of houses away from me. Although we don't appreciate the same style of boats and have differing opinions on Jet Ski's and Baseball Teams :laugh: I respect his positions. This is yet another example of a long time resident, and true resident he is as it is his home, who's voice was not heard during this secret hearing. I can assure you there are plenty more individuals that feel just as he does. Now if we press JTA I am sure he will answer exactly as I have, that we would reap many benefits from a NWZ but we both realize that it is not warranted.

I won't speak any more for JTA but I thought some perspective was needed so people understood that JTA may have different viewpoints on many issues on the lake but we both share frustration on how this was handled and that a small minority snuck this through without letting anyone know.

To refer to the petitioners as the "majority" as three people on this thread have done so is downright laughable and silly. The majority have not been heard. Once we have a real hearing on the matter we will see what the real majority has to say. If the majority supports it after a real hearing, not the complete joke of a hearing that took place, we will accept it and bask in the glow of calm waters at our docks. Either way life is good baby! :D

I think when Classic22 said wow it was because that is all one can usually say when they try to decipher one of your posts that are pieced together out of "parsed text" (please read that to mean snippets taken out of context from other's posts).

I have to ask a questions of you: What threat do you encounter a mile away that would require you to use your signaling device? A mile is a long way off in any boating situation and allows for a lot of course changes prior to having to give way to your boat, sail or otherwise.

Aps "ped"
 

I seriously question the wisdom of using such a device. Were such a device used to intentionally reflect sunlight back into the eyes of the operator of a boat and thereby limit, hinder or otherwise interfere with his or her vision, it would seem to me that such action would constitute an “unsafe” boating practice even if it did not run afoul of civil or criminal law [e. g. intentionally blinding the driver of an on coming vehicle with high beams], especially if there were ample evidence of bragging about using such a device to ward off perceived “threats”

I would have thought the reflection off the tinfoil hat would have been enough to ward off anything :laugh:



Crud, did I just say that?




Yup.

Picture from another thread on the subject.
Seems like room for safe passage if the rules are followed. Maybe MeeNMac's suggestion of some lane markers to keep it simple.
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...1&d=1279993924