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

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

That is going to be a long NWZ and will likely cause others to be added or extended.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. There are many tight areas where shore erosion and damage to boats is not the only issue. And as I said earlier, boats screaming by the 2 little islands (often faster than 45 MPH by their own admission on this forum) are a big problem.
Yes, other NWZ's may be added or extended. People who might use these tight areas but do not reside there will complain loudly but it's likely that most residents who are most affected will give it a thumbs up. I suspect this definitely is the case with those 2 little islands(Little Birch and Squirrell) where I noticed boats, rafts, docks, and swimmers all sharing this tight channel.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

And as I said earlier, boats screaming by the 2 little islands (often faster than 45 MPH by their own admission on this forum) are a big problem.

Sunset, we have all appreciated your responses, but I have read back on every post, and other then you (not even the land owners who started this thread) have ever mentioned that boats going over 45 is an issue. Using language like screaming, faster then 45 mph is only stirring the pot.

Can we just agree that the safe passage rule needs to be enforced and that wakes are an issue?

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

Sunset, we have all appreciated your responses, but I have read back on every post, and other then you (not even the land owners who started this thread) have ever mentioned that boats going over 45 is an issue. Using language like screaming, faster then 45 mph is only stirring the pot.

Can we just agree that the safe passage rule needs to be enforced and that wakes are an issue?

I live here on the Barbers Pole and I can tell you our biggest issue is the large cruiser wakes and the boats plowing along. In almost 10 years here I can count on on hand how many times I've seen a boat go by here above the current law. The issue as has been discussed occurs during these times:

Saturday 12noon-4:00pm
Sunday 12noon-2:00pm
give or take an hour here and there.

So we need a law for this? 6+/- hours a weekend for 8-10 weeks? I'm heavily leaning towards no. Again I have said that I am torn as my boat does take a beating during these hours. With that said I still think a law that punishes all the boaters headed south from the Northeast corner of the lake should not be punished for that.

The biggest problem stems from the random joker in the 40 footer plowing along. I'll try and catch a video and post it one of these days.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

Sunset, we have all appreciated your responses, but I have read back on every post, and other then you (not even the land owners who started this thread) have ever mentioned that boats going over 45 is an issue. Using language like screaming, faster then 45 mph is only stirring the pot.

Can we just agree that the safe passage rule needs to be enforced and that wakes are an issue?

I was referring to this forum, not this thread. And as I said, wakes and erosion are not the only issue. Safety AND noise are part of the problem. Some have argued that noise is not a good reason for a NWZ but some of the loud boats that scream by the 2 little islands just 150' away...well...as was said earlier, if you can't get Al Capone on murder charges, then at least get him on tax fraud.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

I was referring to this forum, not this thread. And as I said, wakes and erosion are not the only issue. Safety AND noise are part of the problem. Some have argued that noise is not a good reason for a NWZ but some of the loud boats that scream by the 2 little islands just 150' away...well...as was said earlier, if you can't get Al Capone on murder charges, then at least get him on tax fraud.

Well in the future I think when we are trying to hash out the issues of the NWZ in the barbers pole we should focus on the actual thread, not the entire forum and remarks from others that have no bearing on the discussion at hand and made in the context of another discussion all together.

After reading the last thread and this one, especially from first hand accounts of those who live in the pole, their contention with the issue of perhaps needing a NWZ is "ONLY" wakes. At no point did Safety AND Noise come up other then by you. So again lets take a step back and address the specific question of why this has been requested by land owners that petitioned for the NWZ in the first place. From all the accounts I have read it had nothing to do with "screaming boats at or further away then the safe passage law dictates". The use again of the verbage "screaming and noise" is an exaggeration to create an illusion of something that has not been discussed nor has been said by anyone who actually lives there. So lets keep the subtle context of these at bay. Also at no point have I read:

"We need this NWZ because my docks and boat are taking a beating from a boat on plain abiding by the laws that are in place to keep boats a safe distance away which has been derived by the dept. of safety and marine patrol."

Hazelnut has specifically mentioned Large Cruisers who are not paying attention to their sizable wakes at very limited times only in the summer. Now, I am not sure if Al Capone is on those boats but maybe we can ask to keep an eye out for him as well in the future when enforcing current laws.

I personally think we need more data and perhaps a study as to where the NWZ would start and stop, the distance from that point to the adjacent shore and then figure out the speed in which the wake will dimish in that zone. Again we especially don't want to make the problem worse for a small set of land owners at the immediate spot where boats are forced to come on and off plain just so other land owners can experience no wakes during these limited time frames in the summer.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

Well in the future I think when we are trying to hash out the issues of the NWZ in the barbers pole we should focus on the actual thread, not the entire forum and remarks from others that have no bearing on the discussion at hand and made in the context of another discussion all together.

Of course remarks from other parts of the forum are relevant and have bearing on the issue at hand, as are remarks from other forums where people speak of breaking the law.

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

After reading the last thread and this one, especially from first hand accounts of those who live in the pole, their contention with the issue of perhaps needing a NWZ is "ONLY" wakes. At no point did Safety AND Noise come up other then by you. So again lets take a step back and address the specific question of why has this been requested by land owners that petitioned for the NWZ in the first place.

Safety and noise are an issue for the people on these 2 small islands as well as in other areas of the Barber's Pole. It was one of the reasons behind the movement for a NWZ. I have visited folks in this area...it is a major reason!

[OCDACTIVE]

Thank you VTsteve... Good Call

I think keeping the discussion on topic with the specific conversation from the posters at hand is very important. This is a very important issue that needs relevant facts and data to prove its relevance and how it can be instituted or not in the most effective manner.

Now I am a straight shooter and personally have not traveled to the islands and knocked door to door asking opinions, however I have counted three residents from the area in these discussions and all have explained in detail what they see the issue to be. So from my hundreds of times if not thousands of times passing through the pole, their posts, and the hours spent personally sitting on the dock watching the boats go by there, I can say with great certainty that this location is in no way unsafer or noisier then anywhere else on the lake that is a channel or bay of its size. There will always be some risk inherent in a waterway used by the public. There are laws, restrictions, and edcucation that has helped reduce these inherent risks.

Without the supporting data and study that I suggested earlier I can not say one way or the other whether this is needed.

IF we start adding NWZ's to simply fix what some people "feel" is an issue without hard facts then it is just a matter of time before more and more and more un-needed NWZ's are petitioned for.

I for one would much rather see the state fund the MP in a manner as such so that they have the resources to enforce the many laws they are charged with already. We can't keep piling more on whether it be more ordenances or NWZ's unless they are needed and asked for by the Marine Patrol.

When was the last time the marine patrol directly asked for a restriction to be placed? I can not think of one in recent memory. But if they were to stand up and say, this is an area that we would like to see a NWZ due to reasons A,B,C from XYZ study then please point me in the way of the petition to sign.

Ok I'm jumping off my soap box..

Time for a Mai Tai on the dock.. (boy I wish I was there right now, 24 hours and counting! but only there for 12 hours then back home YUCK! )


In Response to TB's attempt on twisting the facts yet again:

HELLO MCFLY!!! I doubled it testing the boat in Long Island Sound!!!! Seriously. Please refer me to the RSA in the NH Statues the prohibits me from using my boat at 90 mph in NEW YORK on THE OCEAN?????

[DEJ]

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

[Dhuberty24]

I live right outside the barbers pole, I will agree that big boat wakes suck. The biggest problem is the people who are going headway speed in the middle of the channel. They make it so there is no way around but to slow down and slowly pass them, causing a big wake.
I for one always go through the hole in the wall, I usually just idle down there, waiting for the boat to warm up.
One thing I can tell you because I live there is there is definitely no noise problem. I know allot of people on cow island and I have never heard any body ever complain about noise.

[hazelnut]

SOTD,

In this case I am sorry but you are wrong. I have a house here I have had a house here for almost 10 years. I have ten years of experience with this exact location that is in question. My neighbors and I all agree what the problem is. The people you speak of on Squirrel Island do not spend any time there. I don't know who you spoke to but that house is rented almost 99.9% of the summer.

What we are talking about is basically my back yard. So any comment you have made so far is hearsay and conjecture. If I did not own a house at this location we could debate this subject but considering that you do not own a house here and your viewpoint is based on a few observations and second hand commentary I am going to respectfully disagree with your assumptions.

Last weekend I began videotaping the location and I will post a series of videos for you all to weigh in on. I'm hoping to catch a big Cruiser going by at some point, it is inevitable.

The big problem is and has been for the past almost 10 years, big wakes. Boats do not "scream by (the area)" Quite the contrary many boats do a good job and have done a good job for several years, maintaining safe speeds through the area. The loudest boat I heard this week, it made me look out the window it was so loud, was an antique CrissCraft. I smiled and laughed and wondered what some on the forum would have said to me if they were standing inside my house with me when it went by.

[TiltonBB]

Too many people want to transform the area of the lake they live on into something that it will never be.

Boats go by your house and leave a wake? Get over it! It's a boat, that's what they do.
Boat go by your house and you can hear it? Get over it!
The NH philosophy "Live free or die" is being ignored and eroded with all these little rules. They take away from the pleasure and enjoyment that many people have had for years.
My house looks out to open water for several miles. Guess what? When a large boat or a small boat plowing along goes by two miles away the wake splashes over a two foot wall at the water and onto my front lawn. Should I go ask the state to make the area 3 miles in front of my house into a "No Wake" zone?
Should I ask the state to close down the two marinas around the corner that have over 300 boats, many of which leave large wakes as they pass by?
How many people that bought their houses knew what the situation was in front of their house when they bought it and are now trying to change it?
Buy some mooring whips, get a mooring, that is what many people on my street have done.
The last thing we need is more government regulation. Stop trying to change the lake. There was a reason why you bought on Winnipesaukee or moved here, isn't that reason still good enough?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

"...How many people that bought their houses knew what the situation was in front of their house when they bought it and are now trying to change it? Buy some mooring whips, get a mooring, that is what many people on my street have done. The last thing we need is more government regulation. Stop trying to change the lake. There was a reason why you bought on Winnipesaukee or moved here, isn't that reason still good enough...?"

Looking at our family's Winnipesaukee photographs taken before 1985 show scant boats in this area. That has certainly changed! Huge boat-lifts are becoming the norm, not moorings.

BTW: We moved here to be close to Wolfeboro's airport!

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...I've fought in the past to make sailboats take down their sails and be under power in headway only areas, and I'd do it again..."

On this same-exact subject, we're into the third page (and two threads): residents are "dissed" and there are eight negative references to cruisers—even sailboats have been added.

About 90% of the monohulls* and catamarans* in my area have no engines—and that's not including several windsurfers.
*Boaters who actually put the sails up to go boating.

Of Lake Winnipesaukee, how often have we heard:

"This Lake is for Everybody"

How many times do we hear of "...no more government regulations...", when the same folks were calling for "Boater Certification"?

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

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

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

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

On this same-exact subject, we're into the third page (and two threads): residents are "dissed" and there are eight negative references to cruisers—even sailboats have been added.

About 90% of the monohulls* and catamarans* in my area have no engines—and that's not including several windsurfers.
*Boaters who actually put the sails up to go boating.

Aside from the sarcasm and my ridiculous comment towards sailboats APS (which you didn't get?), real "residents" of the area in question have chimed in, and spoken their mind.

That's pretty refreshing IMO, so join with them in the discussion, I'll try not to confuse you anymore

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

The last thing we need is more government regulation. Stop trying to change the lake. There was a reason why you bought on Winnipesaukee or moved here, isn't that reason still good enough?

The lake is not the same lake that it was in 1960. We have valet stacked boats, bigger horsepower, and way more boats altogether. New situations call for different laws. Perhaps it didn't matter 100 years ago if every boat on the lake dumped their human waste into the lake but it does today. Saying "get over it" is just an unrealistic oversimplification.

And last weekend the loudest boat I heard was not a CrissCraft (sic).

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

The lake is not the same lake that it was in 1960. We have valet stacked boats, bigger horsepower, and way more boats altogether. New situations call for different laws. Perhaps it didn't matter 100 years ago if every boat on the lake dumped their human waste into the lake but it does today. Saying "get over it" is just an unrealistic oversimplification.

And last weekend the loudest boat I heard was not a CrissCraft (sic).

Dumping anything in the lake has always been a fairly serious thing. I remember one time many years ago a boat and owner were "escorted off the lake", so to speak. I always thought that NH and Winni were lightyears ahead of many states in their water protection.

But getting back to this thread title. People that live there have expressed themselves quite well. How would you address their answers, which are quite up-to-date and current, to the issue at hand?

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

But getting back to this thread title. People that live there have expressed themselves quite well. How would you address their answers, which are quite up-to-date and current, to the issue at hand?

This is how. I spoke with a friend from the Barber Pole today. Signatures had to be collected on a petition in order to get a hearing. At said hearing 12 people signed in as For the NWZ and either 1 or 2 against. Afterwards, people wrote to the DOS, I am told, with a 5:1 majority in favor of the NWZ. These are the real residents of the area chiming in.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

This is how. I spoke with a friend from the Barber Pole today. Signatures had to be collected on a petition in order to get a hearing. At said hearing 12 people signed in as For the NWZ and either 1 or 2 against. Afterwards, people wrote to the DOS, I am told, with a 5:1 majority in favor of the NWZ. These are the real residents of the area chiming in.

"REAL RESIDENTS????" Are you kidding me???? SOTD Step away from the keyboard please.

OF COURSE there were 12 people for the NWZ and only 1 or 2 against. This is the point I was making. The people who proposed this and support this got together and told no one what they were doing. They were able to get a hearing and the town DID NOT notify any of the abutting property owners. They "stacked the deck" if you will. They snuck in a little hearing and made it look like the majority support a NWZ.

So here is where we are. A very nice man came to my house a couple of weekends ago and asked if we knew anything about this hearing about a NWZ at the Barbers Pole. I informed him that like everyone in the area we were in the dark. He said he wanted to get a "real hearing" after notifying every resident of the area first. What do the proposers have to hide? Why didn't they notify ALL of the property owners in the area?

As I said I am not sure which way I am leaning as the NWZ would have many benefits for me personally. What I don't like though is the fact that everyone north of the area suffers for my enjoyment. Again SOTD I live in a world where I consider the impact on other people's enjoyment, not just my own selfish views.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

And last weekend the loudest boat I heard was not a CrissCraft (sic).

But last weekend the loudest boat I heard was a (woops) Chris-Craft.

Anyway back on topic. There is a petition circulating to have another "public" hearing. Some folks, should I say the majority of the folks in the area of the Barbers Pole are trying to get a legitimate hearing as the previous hearing was done so with little to no notification to the people who reside in this area. I stumbled upon the information while looking for Parking Passes for the Tuftonboro public lot. The petition is being circulated by a gentleman who lives on Tuftonboro Neck. I'll try to get more details. I'll also notify the members of Winni.com of any hearings that come up.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

But last weekend the loudest boat I heard was a (woops) Chris-Craft.

Anyway back on topic. There is a petition circulating to have another "public" hearing. Some folks, should I say the majority of the folks in the area of the Barbers Pole are trying to get a legitimate hearing as the previous hearing was done so with little to no notification to the people who reside in this area. I stumbled upon the information while looking for Parking Passes for the Tuftonboro public lot. The petition is being circulated by a gentleman who lives on Tuftonboro Neck. I'll try to get more details. I'll also notify the members of Winni.com of any hearings that come up.

Great to hear Hazelnut.... Please keep us informed. I realize you are on the fence but let us know which way you come down on and we will support you 110%.... By all means you live there and will be the most effected!

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Anyway back on topic. There is a petition circulating to have another "public" hearing. Some folks, should I say the majority of the folks in the area of the Barbers Pole are trying to get a legitimate hearing as the previous hearing was done so with little to no notification to the people who reside in this area. I stumbled upon the information while looking for Parking Passes for the Tuftonboro public lot. The petition is being circulated by a gentleman who lives on Tuftonboro Neck. I'll try to get more details. I'll also notify the members of Winni.com of any hearings that come up.

Well this ought to be interesting HN. Apparently, at least 12 people are for the NWZ, and actually signed the petition as being For it.

Sorry Hazelnut, I don't think you're a "real resident" anymore. Looks like headway speed only on the lake from now on.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Dhuberty24

I live right outside the barbers pole, I will agree that big boat wakes suck. The biggest problem is the people who are going headway speed in the middle of the channel. They make it so there is no way around but to slow down and slowly pass them, causing a big wake.
I for one always go through the hole in the wall, I usually just idle down there, waiting for the boat to warm up.
One thing I can tell you because I live there is there is definitely no noise problem. I know allot of people on cow island and I have never heard any body ever complain about noise.

Well someone's complaining, at least that's what someone says. The issue snuck up pretty quick on everybody, which I suspect was the intended result. Whenever I hear anyone relate boats on plane to larger wakes, I smell a rat. It sounds to me like someone's been doing some campaigning, or fibbin'.

Either way, I've never heard anyone in a channel or bay want a NWZ. It simply ruins the atmosphere. The same reasoning for this NWZ could apply to Meredith Neck, and a variety of places. I've fought in the past to make sailboats take down their sails and be under power in headway only areas, and I'd do it again.

[Greene's Basin Girl]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

Well someone's complaining, at least that's what someone says. The issue snuck up pretty quick on everybody, which I suspect was the intended result. Whenever I hear anyone relate boats on plane to larger wakes, I smell a rat. It sounds to me like someone's been doing some campaigning, or fibbin'.

Either way, I've never heard anyone in a channel or bay want a NWZ. It simply ruins the atmosphere. The same reasoning for this NWZ could apply to Meredith Neck, and a variety of places. I've fought in the past to make sailboats take down their sails and be under power in headway only areas, and I'd do it again.

where exactly is the Barbers pole?

[Yankee]

Originally Posted by Green's Basin Girl

where exactly is the Barbers pole?

From your location, you have to head towards the main area of the lake, the so called Barbers Pole is located where the lake narrows between Cow Island(and 2 small islands, Birch? is one) and the main land. It is a narrow channel where on a busy day it is difficult to keep 150 ft from shore and other oncoming boats.

But that problem is only for a very limited distance, and quickly opens up in either direction. This is the crux of the argrument; that is having to slow down for such a short distance would generally create more boat wake than if boats were allowed to remain on plane. here's the link to the hearing held in July: http://www.tuftonboro.org/pages/tuft...9806E-000F8513

IMHO, sunset on the dock and his proponents have an ulterior motive other than the "noise" and their misunderstood "wave" reduction: Large/small, fast/slow boats are bad and must not be permitted to pass by his(sic) property. How dare all these boats disturb their part of the lake, after all they've been here these many years and are "entitled" to their peace of(on) the lake,. Sorry SOTD, but the lake is not what it was as you and I remember 40+ years ago. There is no way that one can turn back the hands of time. Sure, you might be able to maintain your precious NWZ, but that won't diminish the amount of traffic going past your place. You'll see the same amount, albiet slower and throwing up larger wakes.

At least you have the honor to have a place on the lake, if I were you I'd take solice in that.

[John A. Birdsall]

Someone stated that because of the changing of time, changing of HP on the lake that we need a changing of laws. I think in my lifetime that there has been on one needed change in law and that is the 150' law. The rest of the laws are not needed, You cannot make a law that dictates common sense or courtesy, and for the last 30 years those two items on the lake have deterioated to the point of non exsistance. That does not mean everyone, but a majority. You have people pulling skiers in a small area, but watch out cause there is probably two or three other boats pulling skiers, and perhaps a kayak. We need no new laws, we need a way to instill common sense, and courtesy amongst boaters, whether they be cigarette boats or kayaks or in between.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by John A. Birdsall

Someone stated that because of the changing of time, changing of HP on the lake that we need a changing of laws. I think in my lifetime that there has been on one needed change in law and that is the 150' law. The rest of the laws are not needed, You cannot make a law that dictates common sense or courtesy, and for the last 30 years those two items on the lake have deterioated to the point of non exsistance. That does not mean everyone, but a majority. You have people pulling skiers in a small area, but watch out cause there is probably two or three other boats pulling skiers, and perhaps a kayak. We need no new laws, we need a way to instill common sense, and courtesy amongst boaters, whether they be cigarette boats or kayaks or in between.

Is it common sense that's lacking or is it lack of experience combined with ignorance? It's easy for a seasoned captain to see somebody do something unsafe and say that person is an idiot, but keep in mind that person may have no clue what they are doing. While the boater's ed is a step in the right direction in regards to education, but sometimes what I witness on so many occasions makes me wonder if it's enough for somebody who is really green.

Lack of courtesy is a reflection of the overall condition of our culture and society today. People are becoming more and more interested in themselves and self gratification and less so about the effects of their behavior on others. That's not to say that everyone is like that, but sadly a growing number of people are. This is something no law can address. If our culture does not demand self restraint, decency, and an overall awareness of cause and effect in regards to behavior then the bar is set low as to what is acceptable. This may not go over to well, but I directly relate this to fact that this country was founded on Christian principals which for those that are God fearing understand. Since a growing segment of the population does not adhere to these principals nor understand the basic meaning of right and wrong it's no surprise to see what is occurring. It's a matter I guess of looking at things philosophically.

[VtSteve]

There's a lot of attitude in our society for sure. Whether it be people towing tubes in busy traffic areas, or just all these other folks wanting to tell everyone else how they can boat. Some of the comments about this type of NWZ are just as ignorant as those that mush through at max wake speed, or leave no room for other boaters, causing the problem. I don't know what's worse, boaters that really never think about their actions or care about others, or those that spend every waking moment trying to get rid of other boaters that aren't like them.

It would make my boating life infinitely better and easier if no sailboats were allowed in Malletts Bay. But, it's such a logical mooring base for them, that would be ridiculous. I enjoy seeing them, but not having to navigate around them. So I just appreciate their choice, their beauty, and we co-exist and have fun boating. So I can just spend a little more time in a NWZ (channel) and figure out where they are all headed, and then feel free to navigate for 100 miles without seeing another NWZ. Refreshing. It would be far easier to suggest that no sailboats could be in the Bay, right?

I think on-water instruction is really the only sensible solution to boating today. I think people that think they are ultra safe would learn as much, if not more, than those that navigate without hesitation, but with plenty of common sense. It's hard to teach or legislate common sense, but it's a far better way to deal with today's boating world than knee-jerk reactions.

One thing I have suggested in the past, and will do again. Get some special funding for a series of TV/Internet video clips for the MP to do a Boating Tips series. Nothing is better than hands on training and instant feedback, but visuals are a close second. Show a cruiser mushing through that area, followed by a MP doing narrative of what happens to landowners and other boaters. Then, the same boat doing it the preferred way. Very powerful training guides. The $700,000 they took from the MP fund this year could have done a lot of good.

[sunset on the dock]

Maxim makes some very good points here. Maybe some of his points underlie why I'm a little bit surprised that some would oppose the B.P. NWZ, especially in light of some of the other recent threads regarding "boating etiquette". I mean here you need at least 25 people to sign a petition to get a hearing, people from the B.P. show up at the hearing and a majority favor a NWZ, then 5:1 write letters in favor...my point is that clearly there are residents of the area who feel that for whatever reason they favor a NWZ. Now some of you can argue about how some people in the B.P. are opposed to a NWZ or that the residents of the B.P. are out to protect their little piece of Nirvana etc. but I'm trying to point out something bigger here...and here it is. We have some laws on the lake that some on this forum disagree with and thought could never happen. Whether people agree or disagree that there is a noise problem, speed problem, too big wakes, or they "don't feel safe" is not the point. Ignoring these concerns (with comments similar to "get over it" ) solved nothing and an inability to acknowledge these concerns and or self police brought us to where we are today. So my point is that here you have a bunch of people who live in the affected area lobbying for a NWZ...shouldn't we be cognizant of the fact that maybe they have some valid concerns? Well maybe your answer is: "no, these are selfish concerns, its my lake too and I don't want to slow down for 2 minutes on my way to town". Alright, that's your right to express your opinion. So let's say some group that doesn't want to slow down opposes this NWZ and were able to overturn it. Is there any downside to this other than ticking off a few B.P. residents? Well maybe. For example they get together with others in other areas of the lake and say "well that didn't work and maybe there is a larger lake wide problem of boats going too fast in all areas of the lake except the Broads...we need a law that keeps boats at 30 MPH all over the lake except the Broads where 40 MPH is OK...I'm calling my state rep." All I'm trying to point out is to ignore what many people might be a problem with comments like "get a life" does not address the problem and in fact may lead to an over reaction by those who couldn't get a much lesser restriction. I see parallels to other past legislation. We have heard from the snow machine crowd that failure to acknowledge people's concerns about noise has forced some private landowners to close their land. So maybe I'm throwing back what I've seen said on this forum before.."be careful what you wish for". Things could be a whole lot worse than a NWZ.

[VitaBene]

Sunset,

Many people on the lake are effected by noise, wake, etc. The problem with a NWZ is where does it stop? Using the BP example, there are miles of similar areas north of the BP where lake front residents could make similar requests.

Do we make the entire lake a NWZ? Frankly, I think that there are some that would like that. Do you recall when, due to high water levels, the entire lake was a NWZ? I do and it would take almost 6 hours to go from Moultonborough to Meredith by boat. Ask the islanders if they want to spend 3 hours getting to their camps from the mainland docks.

My point is that there are a lot of lakefront homeowners that would probably welcome a NWZ directly in front of their homes but they know at some point the NWZ has to end (I commiserate with Hazelnut- his best interest would be served with a NWZ but he struggles because he knows that it may not what is best for the majority of lake users).

There are those that will contend that the SL did not ruin the lake's economy, but I guarantee that turning Lake Winnipesaukee into a NWZ certainly will.

There is a huge difference between the snowmobile issue and this one. In most cases snowmachines travel across PRIVATE land- Lake Winnipesaukee is not private, it is owned by all of the residents of NH equally.

[VtSteve]

Sunset, it's all well and good to threaten people if they don't bow down to your demands. You're beginning to sound like a terrorist group. Where are these BP residents that want this NWZ, and why aren't they debating this here? It's nice that "for whatever reason, they favor a NWZ". So far, no real reasons have come up for anyone to really favor it. Perhaps there should be a MINIMUM speed in that area, to avoid the mushers that cause large wakes. They do this on interstates you know, for safety reasons.

Maxum did indeed make some good points. I fail to see where any of them supported a NWZ, perhaps you could help

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

Sunset, it's all well and good to threaten people if they don't bow down to your demands. You're beginning to sound like a terrorist group. Where are these BP residents that want this NWZ, and why aren't they debating this here?

No threats here, and I'm certainly not a terrorist. My point was to point out parallels to existing laws and how they may have come about. And as I said before, the B.P. residents did sign in, show up and write. As to why they aren't debating it here...well Winni.com is a big part of some our lives, but my guess is that if you looked at the number of forum members vs. number of people who enjoy the lake, well the fraction would indeed be very small. That's just simple arithmetic.

Originally Posted by VtSteve

SOTD, I know that you like NWZ's, and any that are proposed, you'd probably support. But I also notice that you avoid discussions of enforcement, existing laws, and just good common sense boating practices like the plague.

That's only because most of the time they have been discussed in this forum in the light of trying to dis recent progress and changes that have made the lake a better place for most everyone.

Originally Posted by VtSteve

I do think discussion of all the issues and solutions is better than making idle threats if agreement is not obtained. Please invite those people to discuss this. I'm sure HN is looking for them as well.

Again, calling what I said an idle threat is just inflammatory rhetoric. I was making an analogy that ignoring people's concerns, whether it be noise, wakes, or safety, sometimes results in laws which might be more draconian than some would have thought would result (say excessively uncontrolled loud boats being regulated vs. a speed limit or loud snow machines making land owners close their land).

[VtSteve]

I'll not trouble the good people here any more with this nonsense. I'm fairly sure that most readers here can understand full well what SOTD means, even if he can't say it. Hazlenut, thanks for your real contributions to this thread, and for informing people as to the draconian and cowardly tactics of groups that sneak around in the night trying to make the lake something awful.

Personally, I'd like to see a thread started by SOTD as to what went on this year to cause so many accidents this summer on the lake.

But realistically, I'd like to hear more from this debate from real residents in the BP area. As Hazelnut said, there are some benefits from having a NWZ in the BP area, and obviously, some very real disadvantages.

SOTD, you've ceased to be useful in this discussion at all.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

No threats here, and I'm certainly not a terrorist. My point was to point out parallels to existing laws and how they may have come about. And as I said before, the B.P. residents did sign in, show up and write. As to why they aren't debating it here...well Winni.com is a big part of some our lives, but my guess is that if you looked at the number of forum members vs. number of people who enjoy the lake, well the fraction would indeed be very small. That's just simple arithmetic.

That's only because most of the time they have been discussed in this forum in the light of trying to dis recent progress and changes that have made the lake a better place for most everyone.


Again, calling what I said an idle threat is just inflammatory rhetoric. I was making an analogy that ignoring people's concerns, whether it be noise, wakes, or safety, sometimes results in laws which might be more draconian than some would have thought would result (say excessively uncontrolled loud boats being regulated vs. a speed limit or loud snow machines making land owners close their land).

The part that you are missing is that the overly loud boats or snowmachines are already breaking the existing laws. Making a new law to fight something illegal makes little sense and just taxes the already thin resources of the hard working NH Marine Patrol.

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

The part that you are missing is that the overly loud boats or snowmachines are already breaking the existing laws. Making a new law to fight something illegal makes little sense and just taxes the already thin resources of the hard working NH Marine Patrol.

The part that some are also missing is that many of these laws are ambigious and difficult to enforce. Take the noise regulations. We have heard discussed how the offending boat needs to tested at a later date and by then the owner may have made modifications (temporary ones that is) so as to temporarily be compliant. And talk about a time and labor intensive enforcement of a law. Very much a waste of resources. And as SOTD keeps trying to point out, people who break these laws and sometimes flaunt it are why new laws are supported to try to fix the loopholes in the already existing law.
Someone said that if you can't get Al Capone for murder then at least get him on tax evasion. This couldn't apply more here and if I lived in the Barber Pole I would understand completely why they would want a NWZ. I hope they get it.

[MAXUM]

SOTD-

It's disingenuous and dare I say inaccurate to assume what anyone thinks about a particular subject such as this NWZ proposal without having a chance to get a good accurate broad based sampling of those concerned. The comments of a few land owners is no more representative than the opinions expressed on this forum. However I would venture to say that the forum here attracts a very large audience and not necessarily one that has a particular axe to grind. It should however be noted that all to many times discussions on legitimate topics end up way off topic as the same old nonsense is aired out over and over again even though it has little to do with the subject matter in hand. It should also be noted that many here, including myself who are NOT landowners in the area of concern are indeed interested and certainly are not so belligerent as to ignore legitimate pleas for action. What we do bring to the table is a perspective that is free and clear of any particular self interests (not in my front yard syndrome) other than the use of this area as we enjoy the lake.

I think a fair and valid point has been made, the proposal and subsequent meeting in regards to this NWZ was not very well advertised, attended and therefore not necessarily representative of the boating public as much as it COULD have been. If this lead to a decision to be made based on a lack of opposition in attendance I do not think that was a very objective decision to have been made at that time.

[COW ISL TIME]

The appeal process for the NWZ will end 08/30/10 thirty days from the approval I'm a resident of Cow Island and directly affected by this. I have read the minutes of the meeting supplied to me by a neighbor, more than half of the people that wrote in were from two families on squirrel Isl and little Birch. These people rent the cottages all summer and spend very little time here,not one is a resident of New Hampshire. I don't know how to go about making an appeal, if anybody does please let me know. One of the petitioners actually sited the Blizzard/ Diamond Island accident as the reason they want a no wake.

[TiltonBB]

The wind and rain blew hard all night and waves washed up on my front lawn. The white caps were big and the rough water caused my boat to rock against the dock and pull at it's lines. Does anyone know where I can submit a petition to get this corrected or have the rough water taken off the lake?

Even worse, the Mt Washington and the Sophie C went by about 4 miles away from my house yesterday. Sure enough, about 5 minutes later big waves slammed into my property. Does anyone know where I can submit a petition to get them thrown off the lake?

It's all about me and I want this corrected right away!

[COW ISL TIME]

Interesting reading, I hope I uploaded correctly

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

SOTD-

It's disingenuous and dare I say inaccurate to assume what anyone thinks about a particular subject such as this NWZ proposal without having a chance to get a good accurate broad based sampling of those concerned. The comments of a few land owners is no more representative than the opinions expressed on this forum. However I would venture to say that the forum here attracts a very large audience and not necessarily one that has a particular axe to grind. It should however be noted that all to many times discussions on legitimate topics end up way off topic as the same old nonsense is aired out over and over again even though it has little to do with the subject matter in hand. It should also be noted that many here, including myself who are NOT landowners in the area of concern are indeed interested and certainly are not so belligerent as to ignore legitimate pleas for action. What we do bring to the table is a perspective that is free and clear of any particular self interests (not in my front yard syndrome) other than the use of this area as we enjoy the lake.

I think a fair and valid point has been made, the proposal and subsequent meeting in regards to this NWZ was not very well advertised, attended and therefore not necessarily representative of the boating public as much as it COULD have been. If this lead to a decision to be made based on a lack of opposition in attendance I do not think that was a very objective decision to have been made at that time.

Maxum,

Well said, thank you so much! The reality is that the "Real Residents" of the Barbers Pole area, myself included (dare I say) are just digesting this new scenario. Many of my neighbors and I have had LENGTHY discussions regarding the Pro's and Con's of such a proposal. To have a member of this forum such as SOTD step in and throw the comments that he has just irritates me to no end. Most of what he has said is so completely and patently false I do not know where to begin. All it does is makes me want to go against such a proposal with such fervor that over my dead body it will pass.

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 folks that a NWZ is not needed in that area. Existing laws cover everything already. If I support it I can honestly tell you it would be for selfish reasons and I do not think I can bring myself to do that. Obviously some of my neighbors have no problem with supporting a new law for their personal selfish agenda. AND to boot they will actually make up stories about "speeding boats" and "dangerous encounters" that just do not exist.

Such a sad turn for the worse in the state of New Hampshire these days. I saw the Welcome to New Hampshire sign the other day and I literally laughed out loud at the phrase that I used to love to see... "Live Free or Die." Ya right, I think NH needs a new state motto, and I am NOT kidding here. NH needs to strike that one because it is increasingly becoming a punch line to a very bad joke that this state is turning into. What a shame.

[VtSteve]

VB said it much better than I did. HN brought into question the NWZ, and what it would do to the majority of boaters that are not a problem.

SOTD, I know that you like NWZ's, and any that are proposed, you'd probably support. But I also notice that you avoid discussions of enforcement, existing laws, and just good common sense boating practices like the plague. Contrary to your statement that some are "ignoring" people's concerns, everyone invited people to list those concerns and problems. People that live there, and those that boat through the area. HN was quite eloquent in stating his concerns, both pro and con.

I believe it is You that continually ignore the responses from people that have stated what they've witnessed in the area, and what should be done about it. Everyone involved in this discussion is cognizant of everyone's posts. I have yet to read a post where someone in the affected area is actively lobbying for a NWZ, and why it's the only solution. Where are these people? I'm sure there are some, and everyone would love to discuss this issue, including some that do in fact live and boat there as stated.

I do think discussion of all the issues and solutions is better than making idle threats if agreement is not obtained. Please invite those people to discuss this. I'm sure HN is looking for them as well.

[jrc]

Here's an idea, let's ask the people around the Governors Island, Eagle Island NWZ what they think. They have recent experience with a busy, narrow channel going from wake to no wake.

Are they happy with the change?
Do they think it improves their lake experience?
Has erosion improved?
Has safety improved?

For full disclosure, I was "pro" the Eagle Island NWZ before it was implemented. I'm less sure now, as I just avoid it and the whole area when it's crowded. It is a PITA to slow down mid-week.

[lfm]

Originally Posted by jrc

Here's an idea, let's ask the people around the Governors Island, Eagle Island NWZ what they think. They have recent experience with a busy, narrow channel going from wake to no wake.

Are they happy with the change?
Do they think it improves their lake experience?
Has erosion improved?
Has safety improved?

For full disclosure, I was "pro" the Eagle Island NWZ before it was implemented. I'm less sure now, as I just avoid it and the whole area when it's crowded. It is a PITA to slow down mid-week.

I don't have a home in that area, but do frequent that area - and I think that the NWZ between Governers and Eagle is awful. The area is prone to big waves/wakes from heavy traffic on weekends and it is made worse by boats coming on and off plane and mushing through there. I think it was much safer to navigate before the NWZ was implemented. I know there are times when travelling through that headway speed is mushing speed to avoid taking waves over the bow.

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

Well in the future I think when we are trying to hash out the issues of the NWZ in the barbers pole we should focus on the actual thread, not the entire forum and remarks from others that have no bearing on the discussion at hand and made in the context of another discussion all together.

No bearing on the discussion? Of course other threads are relevant. You yourself bragged last year of "almost doubling the limit". No wonder the poor folks along the Barber Pole petitioned for a NWZ. Not relevant is different from wishing it were not relevant.

[VtSteve]

Extremes indeed.

Thanks once again OCD, for keeping this thread on topic

I would politely suggest, on behalf of both this forum, and Don himself, if people that are not specifically interested in following this issue, refrain from posting here. It's a very important issue on the lake, and one that could have far-reaching impacts.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

[DEJ]

Boats running on the pad through this area leave little to no wake. I am concerned that this proposed no wake area will actually cause more damage. As we all know many boaters do not know what no wake speed is. I can see this area quite possibly becoming a "plow fest" as those who do not understand what no wake really is plow through the area. As the old saying goes "be careful what you wish for."

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by DEJ

Boats running on the pad through this area leave little to no wake. I am concerned that this proposed no wake area will actually cause more damage. As we all know many boaters do not know what no wake speed is. I can see this area quite possibly becoming a "plow fest" as those who do not understand what no wake really is plow through the area. As the old saying goes "be careful what you wish for."

You know that's a great point due to the proposed length of this area to pass through. People are going to get impatient going through such a long stretch at a snail's pace and surely will tend to be water plowers.