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

[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.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

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.

Regarding the noise through what will be the BP NWZ, if the boat is non-compliant (or even compliant but somewhat loud) with existing laws then the residents of the BP area are going to hear the thrumming of exhaust for 20 minutes not 1 or 2 not to mention the sounds of stereos and talking that carries so well across the water. (my apologies to Aimee Mann for stealing the title of my post from her fantastic song)

I guess we will see how it all plays out...


COW ISL TIME- thank you for posting the PDF, it made for interesting reading.

[OCDACTIVE]

Ok.. Look....... This has started turning into what we have tried to avoid. This is becoming a thread where people are depicting every word, every post and every comment to make a point..

Let me try to sum this up so that the rehtoric can stop.

1. Hazelnut lives there, he sees everything first hand, knows the people sending in the letters, obviously is an expert on the situation and is directly effected by its outcome. He is even on the fence about this. He realizes what implications could take place both ways and is simply asking for "all" resdients real or ficticious to have a chance to be heard. So let them.

2. this is not a noise issue, so lets not make it a noise related thread. If you want to discuss that, YET again................... start a new thread.

3. this is not a speed issue, so lets not make it speed related thread. If you want to discuss that, go elsewhere.

Obviously the letters are going to be askew because they were only from those trying to push it through and those who where lucky enough to hear about the hearing before hand. Saying this gives a good cross section of residents is like going to an old age home asking who supports the AARP.

So personally "I think" we should argue for a new hearing. If you are that passionate about it then go to said hearing and state your case, if not let those who are "real" residents have their say and sit back and see what happens.

Trying to turn this into something it is not, won't help anyone or get us anywhere.

[sunset on the dock]

Reading some of this written testimony makes me understand that any person or group interested in safety would want embrace this new NWZ.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Reading some of this written testimony makes me understand that any person or group interested in safety would want embrace this new NWZ.

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

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

[Yankee]

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

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

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

[ApS]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

"...Obviously the letters are going to be askew because they were only from those trying to push it through and those who where lucky enough to hear about the hearing before hand..."

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

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

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

"...This has started turning into what we have tried to avoid...Hazelnut...is even on the fence about this..."

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

"...All it does is makes me want to go against such a proposal with such fervor that over my dead body it will pass...".

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

"...2. this is not a noise issue, so lets not make it a noise related thread..."

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

Something many here wished for...

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

"...3. this is not a speed issue..."

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

Something many here wished for...

Be careful what you wish for...

[hazelnut]

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is getting ridiculous.

[jrc]

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

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

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

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

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

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by jrc

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jrc]

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

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

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

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

[topwater]

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

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by topwater

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

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

[jmen24]

So in theory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by elchase

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Thanks again el.

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.

[DEJ]

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.

[tis]

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.

[NoBozo]

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... ELCHASE...SUNSET..TURTLE...??? Give me a break. NB

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

[OCDACTIVE]

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..

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.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by elchase

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.

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

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

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by elchase

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.

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!

[winni83]

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.

[VtSteve]

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?

[TiltonBB]

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.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

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.

[trfour]

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

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
_______________________________________

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by elchase

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.

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.

[VtSteve]

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.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

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.

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.

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. 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.
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.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

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.

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. 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.
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.

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.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by elchase

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...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.

[SIKSUKR]

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.

[hazelnut]

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

[OCDACTIVE]

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?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Kracken

"...Annie's secret decoder ring..."

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. 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.

Originally Posted by classic22

maybe its just me but....WOW!

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your assessment, anyway.

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

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!

Bobby was long-gone when I became involved.

Sorry you're not getting it.

Originally Posted by hazelnut

"...My goal is not to paint a perfect picture...I can't wait to capture the chaos..."

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

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

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

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. Sometimes the waves crash over the patio and sweep a chair into the water.

Originally Posted by JTA

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.

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 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!

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

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. 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.


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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your assessment, anyway.


Bobby was long-gone when I became involved.

Sorry you're not getting it.


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

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.

[winni83]

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”

[VtSteve]

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



Crud, did I just say that?




Yup.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

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.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

"...I think when Classic22 said wow it was...when ...one of your posts...are pieced together out of "parsed text"...

(...snippets taken out of context from other's posts)..."

Restricted to five posts in a 24-hour period...I..."make lemonade".

(Hat-tip to IG)

1) Look back at Hazelnut's post. He has "parsed" my comment exactly right: it may appear to be "out of context", but HN hasn't changed my meaning what-so-ever. This is in general accord with a practice that is used at this country's largest Internet forum, of which I am also a member.

(Alternatively, they also use << snip >>—also seen here at this forum).

If you try to read your copy of my last reply, it has lost whatever context it ever had.

2) HN is also correct to "parse" Cow Islander's reply to leave out the fact of "loud noise in Formula boats", as he doesn't choose to address that fact in his reply: that is also "parsing", but retains context without introducing extraneous thought.

3) If you look at winni83's quote, below, it can't survive any parsing, so that quote is untouched.

Originally Posted by VitaBene

"...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..."

1) Boats do wander all over, it's true. Watch any Jet-Ski for a few seconds! But that's what it feels like to have a real freedom. (Something we can't do on NH's byways).

2) It's also true that a mile is a long way, but that's the kind of defensive driving that should be practiced when driving on the road. Only one other member here has ever mentioned it.

It occurs to me every so often, that I've never resorted to the "panic-braking" ABS feature in my 16-year-old vehicle!

3) Seeing that there are still "the usual suspects" using "civil disobedience" on Lake Winnipesaukee to express their "thrill-inclinations", the one-mile distance can be closed in a fraction of one minute.

Even less, depending on my own course and speed.

Originally Posted by COW ISL TIME

"...I suspect 70 plus with nothing better to do..."

While I'd characterize this comment as Agist, I also suspect that 70-year-olds would include the "Greatest Generation"—and others with the time to express concern for grandchildren. (Including the children who are not their own grandchildren).

Originally Posted by VitaBene

"...SBONH was formed to promote safety and boater education on NH's bodies of water including Lake Winnipesaukee..."

Within SBONH's mission-statement appears a demanded change in Winnipesaukee's present law that noisy exhaust "cut-outs" be restored to loud engines on Lake Winnipesaukee.

What this has to do with boating safety is anyone's guess.

This "flip-side of safety" seems to be counter-intuitive.

(Not surprisingly).

Originally Posted by winni83

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”

So far, no complaints; in justification, it is likely that the affected helmsmen see the correctness of "being corrected". The President of the SBONH's predecessor (and Littlefield and LaPointe), were threats for miles and miles and miles.

The PED device can be as small as you want to make it—credit card size or postage stamp size. Just how big do you think a P.E.D. needs to be?

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...I would have thought the reflection off the tinfoil hat would have been enough to ward off anything..."

IMHO, "The Rules" of this guy shouldn't appear at this forum.

[ishoot308]

Sorry APS, couldn't get through reading your post before a migraine set in...

Dan

[winni83]

Looks like the magnum size to me. See below. No complaints yet is not much of a justification. Perhaps you have been lucky. Some might not be tolerant of such acts.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Boy, does it ever.

What you need is a DIY "Powerboat Excluder" for sunny days.



The prototype modeled here has three disposable CDs attached to an old hat. However, just one CD in front is best, as it is really a powerful mirror used to reflect the sun.

While you could simply carry a CD on board, this model can be "aimed" by just moving your head: meanwhile, control of your boat can be maintained with both hands. The results are highly gratifying, and kayakers have commented favorably about it.

Some "previously-flashed" locals give my boat a wide berth; on the other hand, skippers who fail to notice the bright flash from my boat get my instant concern and attention.

Bass boats and Jet-Skis never seem to miss it—perhaps because they are always focused forward.

It's highly effective. Try one—you'll like it!


I was just reading that injuries from a jet drive can be severe. ("Ask an ER doctor".) 'Guess it'd be deadly if you got a snootful.


I've seen the NHMPs shoo "littler" kids on swim rafts closer to shore: with the remarkable increase in lakefront rentals in my locale, it's a much more common sight this year.

I was just reading of an Internet post where the Coast Guard fined a boater $250 reckless operation—for passing swimmers near a dive flag, ¼-mile off a beach—in the ocean!


Not as bad as the photo below: This little girl is riding on the swim platform!

Both ends of a boat should be of concern.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

IMHO, "The Rules" of this guy shouldn't appear at this forum.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=2314

"Though Alinsky is rightfully understood to have been a leftist, his legacy is more methodological than ideological. He identified a set of very specific rules that ordinary citizens could follow, and tactics that ordinary citizens could employ, as a means of gaining public power. His motto was, "The most effective means are whatever will achieve the desired results.""


Not only do his rules appear here on the forum, I think we can identify him/them by name

[ApS]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=2314

"Though Alinsky is rightfully understood to have been a leftist, his legacy is more methodological than ideological. He identified a set of very specific rules that ordinary citizens could follow, and tactics that ordinary citizens could employ, as a means of gaining public power. His motto was, "The most effective means are whatever will achieve the desired results.""

Not only do his rules appear here on the forum, I think we can identify him/them by name

1) This last statement (in red) needs clarifying.

It would appear to be a blanket remark that affects more than one member as to their veracity. As for myself, you have ten years of ApS posts in which to locate a statement that expresses a deliberate untruth.

2) "Whatever will achieve the desired results" appeared very early in the speed limit discussions. Perhaps you missed just one of those posts.

Most citizens don't know how significantly this un-American agenda has already affected their future well-being. The same phrase accounts significantly for the national dithering apparent in recent headlines.

[Yankee]

Originally Posted by Ryan

APS - Again, this is borderline unreadable.

Nothing borderline about...I stopped attempting to translate his "Parsi" many years ago.

[ApS]

The quest began after 6-AM in easy breezes from the NW. Winds picked up to about 14-MPH shortly afterwards. Nice, but not the relaxing sail I prefer. 'Never-once used my PED going to Cow Island.

Very few boats were out at that hour: Two salmon fishermen in The Broads—including the "fisherman in the 'red boat'".

As I approached the south end of the Barber Pole channel, an MP snuck up on me—turned on his lights and siren and took off—after making a 180° turn. (A Jet-Ski "chase", I think, though the Jet-Ski had given me plenty of room). It could have been a registration number that set things in motion. Once the MPs have a complainant giving a registration number, they have a "hook" to pull you over.

At that time, I was in the "wind shadow" of Cow Island and proceeded in accordance with the gentle puffs. I drifted into the small cove near a tiny island with a very shallow entrance. Sundecks were in use, and several islanders commented favorably as I passed by:

"You would make a great picture", one said.

Just before I got over to the location of the purported Boston Whaler, I was passed at headway speed by a sight-seeing boat named "Big Sandy II". (New to me). They slowed even further to point out the tiny cove behind the tiny island. One lady passenger then waved to me: I knew by waving back, there would be many "waves" that would then "need-returning".

"Big Sandy II" had a diesel odor.

It docked on the Tuftonboro side and let off about 30 people. Those passengers may have something to do with the YMCA camp on Sandy Island, nearby. I recognized a "work-boat" from YMCA/Sandy Island that had preceeded them to the same dock.

After a little backtracking, a little before 8-AM—I'm still looking for a Boston Whaler. Even at that hour, there was some activity at the waterfronts along Cow Island. Lots of hammers swinging around the cottages there, this weekend. Two residents were moving underwater rocks around. Some were thrown into deeper water. (Something I don't understand ).

But I still ended-up not seeing any Boston Whaler boat.

Where I thought the Boston Whaler (and a camera) should be, was a dysfunctional scene: two dogs—one brown, one black—were running back and forth across the properties of other residents. Their owners were yelling and also chasing back and forth through five or more lots at any one time.

("No, Toby doesn't bite"... )

At the waterfront, The Beatles were being playing loudly at 8-AM.

I'm not going to complain—ever again—about my own July neighboring rental-people. I'd already nick-named them, "The Clampetts".

A Bald Eagle was sighted high overhead—soaring in great circles—drifting leisurely to the southeast. He was "checking out" the center of Tuftonboro Neck.

Because I was in no rush, the round trip took six hours. The return trip was dicey, because "Chaos reigns" after 11-AM on weekends.

Even using the PED (as best I could in the extreme chop), I couldn't persuade even half of the oncoming boats to give me enough room to clear the markers. One stood out: a Grady-White with a Mercury. The "driver" waved to me, while passing at about 60'. His wake was considerable, and I had to reduce sail to keep from submarining under it.

For my small vessel at 12:30-PM, the lake was very rough with wind and wakes cross-colliding. The wind had increased markedly, and wakes were large and indeterminate. That gave me an intense workout I'd like to forget. I managed to wave to a few considerate boaters—most of them in outboards.

My eyes got to squeaking after being out on the lake for six hours-straight. I shouldn't complain: it was a weekend, but it was sunny.

The crux of the problem is that the channel has an inside curve: that's where boat-wakes are steep, which are the worst you can encounter.

Residents are densely situated, and getting hammered by nearly every mid-sized boat that goes by. (Even at reasonable speeds.)

As I turned to leave the area,—wouldn't you know it—a tuber passed me running straight-through the middle of the channel.

He gave me about 75'—and a wave!

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

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.

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

Siksukr nailed it: Mirror, Mirror

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by elchase

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.

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.

[VtSteve]

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.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

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.

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.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

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.

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.

[JTA]

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)

[COW ISL TIME]

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

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by elchase

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

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

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

Hi bud,

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

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

Regards

[Turtle Boy]

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

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

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

Against my better judgement I will respond...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[VtSteve]

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

Please, no Mushers

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

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

TB,

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

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

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

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

[ApS]

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

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

"...Hmmmm...it is not unreasonable to suggest that any individual or group who is safety minded would support such a measure. That's just common sense..."

Some individual or group could get mud on their faces. Cue a famous Edmund Burke quotation here:

"...while a few good men do nothing".

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...?"

1) Read the letters: some writer's families have been there since the mid-1800s.

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

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

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

Originally Posted by 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...?"

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

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

[Irrigation Guy]

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

[HUH]

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

[classic22]

Originally Posted by HUH

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

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

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by classic22

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

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

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by HUH

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

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

[Kracken]

Hi Turtle,

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

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

Have a good day, nice hearing from you again.

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by Kracken

Hi Turtle,

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

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

Have a good day, nice hearing from you again.

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

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

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

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

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

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

[DEJ]

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

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

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by Ryan

If nothing else, I'd ask you to at least read Hazelnut's posts before you come back spewing agenda and lobbing grenades. To paraphrase for you, he has very clearly stated over and over that a NWZ is not needed

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

[DEJ]

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.

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

I wouldn't like those boats tearing so close(as close as 150') to my house all day long. Saying that a NWZ is not needed does not necessarily make it the truth.

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?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Ryan

If you're 150' away from ANY shoreline, you're operating within the limits of the law on any part of the lake - "tearing" or not.

One would also expect that the 40+ people that feel differently would live on or near the BP, not just renters.

Akkkk !!! Renters are People, too!

Originally Posted by LocalRealtor

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

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.

Nothing has improved my own boating enjoyment—and safety—more than communicating with other boaters in that way. 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.

Originally Posted by HUH

"... I happen to live in a NWZ.. and I have a boat capable of easily breaking the speed limit..Just wanted to get those facts in the open so I don't get thrown in that pot.

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?

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

"...I personally love the wakes. OCD rarely gets to use her hull for whats its designed to do on the lake: smashing through wakes. Those are one of the places due to the large wakes she performs brilliantly (at 45 mph of course)..."

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? That is one INFO-mercial all of Winnipesaukee's boaters could applaud!

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 .)

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.

[classic22]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Akkkk !!! Renters are People, too!

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.

Nothing has improved my own boating enjoyment—and safety—more than communicating with other boaters in that way. 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?


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? That is one INFO-mercial all of Winnipesaukee's boaters could applaud!

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 .)

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.

maybe its just me but....WOW!

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Akkkk !!! Renters are People, too!

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 .)

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.

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!

[Dhuberty24]

[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.

[Irrigation Guy]

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.

[VtSteve]

Great day for a break with this weather and all.

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

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

Bravo Don! and Thanks

[Yankee]

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

[jrc]

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

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Yankee

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

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

[Greene's Basin Girl]

Originally Posted by Yankee

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

Where is the Barber's Pole?

[Geneva Point]

The Union Leader reported today that the state Department of Safety is re-examining its decision earlier this year to create a no-wake zone in the Barber's Pole area between Tuftonboro Neck and Cow Island. Does anyone have any more deals?

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Geneva Point

The Union Leader reported today that the state Department of Safety is re-examining its decision earlier this year to create a no-wake zone in the Barber's Pole area between Tuftonboro Neck and Cow Island. Does anyone have any more deals?

Same press release as you see above.

The petitioners were not able to prove residency or property ownership.

The no wake zone has been overturned and hearing is now closed.

It is as if it never happened.

[BroadHopper]

I have mentioned before that the abbuters were upset over the ruling. Yet BIM beg to differ and disputed my claim.

[hazelnut]

The "real residents" of the area were 90% against the NWZ. We circulated a petition and out of the roughly 30 properties only 2 or 3 were in favor of the NWZ. Ironically these were the attendants of the original hearing.

This was a case of a couple of property owners who got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. They tried to sneak a hearing in and they almost got away with it. Back in the summer on the weekend of the original hearing one family told some people they were just having a family reunion when they were asked why they were at the house for the weekend. These are the Squirrel Island people that rent the house out all summer. They never mentioned to us that they were actually all there to attend a hearing on the NWZ.

The whole situation turns my stomach that these slimy people would try to pull such a sleazy move. I was more ticked off at the process than anything else. As I have said in the past the NWZ would have had some benefits for me personally. I win either way. Thank you SBONH for your support and for shining a light on situations like this where a select few try to dictate the use of a public resource.

[VtSteve]

Who owns this Squirrel Island? Maybe a poster here?

It's always nice when something is stopped for the right reasons. It seems that many people now want to pass legislation in the dark of night, and let as few people know about it as possible. Oh well, there are lots of devious people out there with nothing better to do. They hate the fact that somewhere out there, someone might be having a good time

Well kudos to those that sent them back to their dark caves. Always nice when people are thoughtful.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

Who owns this Squirrel Island? Maybe a poster here?

It's always nice when something is stopped for the right reasons. It seems that many people now want to pass legislation in the dark of night, and let as few people know about it as possible. Oh well, there are lots of devious people out there with nothing better to do. They hate the fact that somewhere out there, someone might be having a good time

Well kudos to those that sent them back to their dark caves. Always nice when people are thoughtful.

I think it's becoming standing room only in these caves! More to follow, that's for sure.
Happy Veteran's Day

[Turtle Boy]

Somehow I think SBONH's presence in this controversy will not help with their long term plans and agenda and they will regret their involvement. This article appears in today's Laconia Daily Sun.

Thanks to "safe" boaters, full throttle through Barber Pole is OK
Nov 17, 2010 12:00 am
To the editor,

The New Hampshire Department of Safety has reversed its earlier decision that had established a No Wake Zone in the narrow and often busy Barber's Pole channel of Lake Winnipesaukee, at the request of a group of boaters headed by a member of a performance boating club calling itself the "Active Thunder Cult".

The Department of Safety makes this reversal based on a technicality raised by this boating group, despite having earlier found that without the no-wake designation, present law "does not provide adequate safety" and that "No Wake speed along this route within Lake Winnipesaukee will improve public safety; maintenance of residential, recreational, and scenic values; variety of uses; and, environment and water quality."

Using the moniker "Safe Boaters of New Hampshire", the boating group, whose founder has stated a primary mission of having Lake Winnipesaukee's boating speed limit repealed, has arranged so that most boaters may again travel full throttle through the narrow 2-way channel, even after the Department of Safety had determined that "There is not sufficient availability and practicality of enforcement" to ensure safety in the channel absent no-wake speed limitations.

Ed Chase

Meredith

[NoRegrets]

Some look for the ugly in every situation. Amazing!

[rockythedog]

Turtle Boy, is that an article written by an unbiased journalist or the ravings of some wack-job in a letter to the editor? Do you even know the difference?

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

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

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

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

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

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

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

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

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

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

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

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

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

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