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

[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!

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.

[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.

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.

[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

[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.

[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
_______________________________________

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.

[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.

[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!!!

[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

[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

[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!

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

I got over there about 8-AM, looking for a Boston Whaler.

Where I thought the Boston Whaler and the camera should be, was a dysfunctional scene: Dogs—and their owners yelling, and chasing back and forth through five or more lots at any one time! ("No, Toby doesn't bite"... )

The Beatles being playing loudly at 8-AM.

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

My eyes are squeaking after being out on the lake for six hours-straight. I'll finish this message after I've gotten some shuteye.

For a small vessel at 12:30-PM, the lake was very rough with wind and wakes cross-colliding, giving me a workout I'd like to forget.

Basically, the problem is the channel has an inside curve: that's where boat-wakes are worst. They're getting hammered by 40'-plus boats traveling even at reasonable speeds.

Sure enough, there was a tuber running up the channel. He gave me about 75'—and a wave!

In the south end of the channel, an MP snuck up on me—turned on his lights and siren and took off, after making a 180° turn. (Jet-Ski "chase", I think).

More later...

Wrong house? We don't have a dog. Not a Beatles fan either. Perhaps your "eyes (were) squeaking" earlier than you though.

[ApS]

Dan,

You may have been using hyperbole, but sorry about the migraine headache anyway.

With time, you will outgrow migraine headaches; however, if "aura" accompanies your migraine, "aura" will stay with you the rest of your natural life.

Originally Posted by 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.

I couldn't locate that photo earlier, so thank you for finding that message. If you saw the ApS message that followed, two NHMP officers thought a PED was a good answer to the problem!

In order to speak with them, I'd used a PED to summon them over!

The current PEDs I use are much smaller, and consist of only a fraction of one CD. One was shown briefly at ForumFest-2010.

The "Magnum" was too fragile from day one. It was very effective at horsefly-swatting, but it promptly became only a "one-use item" for me.

I've given away a few "Mk. IIs" to kayakers, who never knew that some powerboaters, "couldn't see them on the lake".

Originally Posted by Ryan

I cannot believe that the country's largest internet forum allows you to snip and edit posts, creating vertigo like effects. Are you also on a 5 post per day limit there?

"If you cannot believe it, you will fail."
—Yoda
(I read that somewhere).

There, the number of posts at any time are unlimited for all. The site is "hugh" in size.

For now, I'll leave off the quotes which you assert "creates vertigo"; still, expect to see their standard abbreviations here—FWIW, IIRC, IOW, and OP.

Originally Posted by Ryan

Maybe we should paint lines on the lake and increase the SL to 65MPH - just like "driving on the road"?

That's an extreme view I would hardly subscribe to. You write as though you have experienced ABS' "panic braking". I suggest looking as far ahead as possible, for all drivers.

Looking as "far ahead as possible" is valuable advice for any kind of transportation—but useless if you "text" while driving your car, and not so helpful if you're operating GPS or have a cellphone in hand.

But looking far ahead is a frequent failure of Winnipesaukee "drivers". Although 97% of us captains are "above-average", you can bump that to one-hundred percent, if your boat has "graphics", and all your compatriots agree with you on everything.

Originally Posted by Ryan

At 45MPH, that one mile distance would certainly be well over one minute. If you were travelling in the exact opposite direction at 15MPH, then it would be exactly one minute.

Before you snip / , * cut, # and butcher \ / some of | what I've posted • to spin « it to your ¢ liking ® please take ¶ a ¬ minute² (literally) and watch the full 60 seconds gø by.™

Like many others before you, you've tried to put words in my mouth: the usual suspects commit civil-disobedience every weekend—ignoring the daytime speed limit by doubling it—if they are able.

One admitted here (yesterday) that a USCG certificate was enough in credentials to display their own personal civil-disobedience obligations to their many admirers.

Originally Posted by Ryan

After you're done, think about a few things. First, if you were piloting your Thrill seeking vessel on the lake, would one minute and thirty-three seconds be enough time for you to turn your wheel?

The four fatal Winnipesaukee collisions that made headlines had many miles (and minutes) in which to "turn their wheels". I wish "turning a wheel" could make it that simple, but I can't account for the anarchy that was out there—and which still remains in pockets.

My thrill-machine is a sailboat, and don't have "a wheel" to turn. It only takes seconds to turn my boat within its own length; however, that is an insufficient reaction to save my passengers, crew, and me.

Safety is the first of the ABCs of being a boat captain.

You can't be a responsible captain for passengers and crew, if you depend on the "30-somethings 'high self-esteem'" and the "group-congratulatory behavior" that inevitably leads to lawbreaking.

SBONH' newest switchable-exhaust initiative adds nothing for a boat captain who is serious about safety.

Originally Posted by Ryan

Lastly, how many times have the 'usual suspects' or any boater on the lake been involved in an accident that the SL would have prevented? Quote this: NONE

SIKSUKR will tell you the true story of a "cigar boat" that flew off the lake at night. Three died instantly when they entered a Gilford cottage up-side down.

I recall that beheadings were reported among the three victims; however, that was a reply by another poster, so I can't quote that addendum for you with my usual assurance of accuracy.

Originally Posted by LocalRealtor

Picture from foul weather day too, likely from another location.

The attachment below shows the results of a gargantuan wake I did not witness: you'll have to believe me that it is the same dock and the same location.

Originally Posted by Ryan

APS - Again, this is borderline unreadable. Kind Regards.

But I can read you just fine.



Yr Hmbl Svnt,

ApS

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

"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.


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".


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.

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!

So. You witnessed numerous safe passage violations, but nothing too serious, just not a measured 150'. The waves in that area are pretty well-documented, and you see them first hand.

You seem to be inclined to make outboard boats sound friendlier than others. I don't like those big camp boats that smell bad either. You also did not navigate properly to find the Whaler, I thought the exact location was pretty well described

The "curve". I know just what you mean. As boats turn at certain speeds, particularly larger ones with deeper Vees or semi displacement hulls, the wakes take on the high shape of a large white cap. If you happen to be inside this curve, the wakes approaching you seem to be double the size and height. This makes things even harder when you are out in windy conditions, probably not suitable for small craft. But your skills enabled you to make the journey, even while attempting to blind oncoming mariners with your PED. Did they actually cut off your access to clear the markers?

Question: How many boats slowed down to musher speed so their wakes became larger?

[SIKSUKR]

Well I spent an hour from about 12 or 12:30 on Saturday in the BP zone just to watch the mayhem. Guess what? I saw just the opposite. 5-6 times I watched as numerous boats approached each other and every time all parties came to headway speed when appropriate. Everything looked very orderly to me.
Found HN's camp and lingered out front for a minute but no boats were present so I moved on. Wanted to introduce myself HN, maybe next time.

[Pineedles]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Well I spent an hour from12 to 12:30 on Saturday in the BP zone just to watch the mayhem.Guess what?I saw just the opposite.5-6 times I watched as numerous boats approached each other and every time all parties came to headway speed when appropriate.Everything looked very orderly to me.
Found HN's camp and lingered out front for a minute but no boats were present so I moved on.Wanted to introduce myself HN,maybe next time.

Thank you Bill. Your opinion carries alot of weight around these parts. This is what we need, people expressing their direct observations and opinions about a proposed NWZ, as its passage will affect everyone.

[ApS]

You didn't read my last travelogue on the Barber's Pole NWZ?

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Well I spent an hour from about 12 or 12:30 on Saturday in the BP zone just to watch the mayhem.Guess what?I saw just the opposite.5-6 times I watched as numerous boats approached each other and every time all parties came to headway speed when appropriate.Everything looked very orderly to me.
Found HN's camp and lingered out front for a minute but no boats were present so I moved on.Wanted to introduce myself HN,maybe next time.

We're describing the same place, but we're describing different times.

The four hours I spent between 8-AM to 10-AM appeared differently from the one hour you spent between 12 to 12:30.

If you had called-out "Toby", I expect your PWC would've had doggie company very shortly. You didn't see a Boston Whaler—I'd put money on that! If you didn't hear The Beatles being played loudly, there wasn't a 27' Chapparal there to play it.

The "Big Sandy II" wasn't the only boat at headway speed—most were southbound, anyway. It wasn't the "big camp boat" passengers that were smelly. I was only referring to the diesel engine powering it.

One huge Fountain passed through at legal speed—not that anybody could think-of-any-thing-else-at-the-time. His wake was not outrageous, but the wakes of heavy-laden boats were. I had to "time" my approach to the Islands' shallows, so as not to beat the bottom repeatedly when a wake would be striking the shoreline.

Among other small boats along that stretch, one resident has six wind-surfers raised several feet above high-water. How do they manage to go sailing at all? Do they need a tow to secure waters?

How could they not want a NWZ in front of their launch point?

The BP residents throwing rocks from their docking spaces—I now realize—were "manually dredging" the shallows under their boats. This was keep their boats from striking-bottom, after wakes had roughed-up their boats.

Leaving, I had this feeling I should put on my PFD as I entered the waters south of Barber's Pole.

On my southbound return trip, I realize that some boaters just don't care.

I have to "hide" on the wrong side of markers, because too many have this need to "clip" the markers. Not giving 150-feet of safe passage to small boats that wouldn't damage their gelcoat is just wrong.

I made a point to wave at considerate boaters, even as my boat had contact with the surface at only one or two places along its keel at any one moment.

I support the NWZ at Barber's Pole, even as my own needs for wake protection can never be provided: a breakwater wasn't granted a permit—and neither would a NWZ ever happen here.

I enjoy watching folks playing on the waters: it's a shame that those with oversized boats can't go tubing in The Broads—a scant ½-mile away. They disrupt enjoyments of everyone else in front of my location—tossing our boats and shallows into a roiled mayhem. The anarchy of wake damage occurs within their eyesight, though they choose not to see it first-hand, behind them.

A friend from Camp Wyanoke days visited me on Sunday: we watched as the wakes hammered in. Imagine getting wet 10-feet above the lake!

Though he lives in sight across our shared harbor, he was impressed by the forces that were unleashed along my shoreline.

From Port Wedeln he can clearly see boats rafting in Johnson's Cove. He is not affected by the oversized boats that "commute" to Johnson's Cove on weekends. His location is less "waked", as he is on the "outside" of wakes—our side gets hammered, as we're on "the inside".

It is no different at Barber's Pole.

We both remarked that a 22' outboard "lobster-boat style" boat that is manufactured locally, leaves a very modest wake—indeed. It appears to be the perfect Lake Winnipesaukee boat for all reasons—barring the weather extremes that can sink a Cobalt. ('Though maybe it was actually a better boat in that circumstance—even given its smaller size.)

Even boats of "only" 24-feet can throw a wake that can overturn the unsuspecting jon-boat or canoe. We can suspect an oversized boat damaged a seaplane last week. The two recorded 2010 hypothermia fatalities could have oversized boats to blame.

'Sorry this reply is late, by a day: I managed seven posts on Sunday—for whatever reason that was permitted. All day long on Monday, I never lost the error-message that said "You have exceeded five posts in a 24-hour period". I'm not a "numbers person" at all. I don't understand the algorithm that controls my replies intermittantly—then blocks them.

At bottom, I support the NWZ at Barber's Pole. Any reasonable person would, as well. Residents who fund this state through property taxes should have this slightest of courtesies extended.

I viewed the clatter, barking, and banging at Cow Island as a peculiar form of noise-pollution, but any headline that could follow misadventure, is worth two minutes of delay when transiting the narrows at Barber's Pole.

IMHO.

[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.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

1)

"His motto was, "The most effective means are whatever will achieve the desired results."

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.

I'm well aware of how unsavory and distasteful that line is. I don't think you'd have to look far to find a post of my own that referenced that sort of behavior. It's also been the subject of some threads people found too nasty for their taste. In fact, I've had some people PM me and say just that.

"Doesn't matter if we lied, WE WON".

I freely admit, that the tactics "means", disturb me much more than the results, whether I agree with them or not. Perhaps I get a little too hot under the collar sometimes, and I think some have failed to see that I was upset over the tactics, not necessarily the issue at hand. I believe I even started a thread which said just that, but somehow cannot find anymore

In addition, one thing that seems to confuse the heck out of people nowadays, I don't discriminate when calling out against someone's methods. If I agree with someone's "agenda", but deplore their methods, I will still find deceitful tactics to be just that, unsavory and unwelcome. I guess that's just me though.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

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.

You know I really don't try to be be confrontational with you, but I still have no clue what you are talking about. And I am sure I am not alone.

I do find it humorous that some of the biggest performance boat haters on this forum seem to spend a lot of time on performance boat forums. Thank you because without you posting about them here I would never have known about them!

[MAXUM]

Well APS and SOTD it's pretty obvious what your MO is - simply orchestrate a "crisis" take a few pieces of evidence completely out of context, if that's not possible fabricate whatever is necessary to make others believe the foolishness you're spewing. There is simply no supporting factual evidence thus provided that comes close to support the erroneous claims of yours that the BP is an out of control area where people's lives are at risk and boats are flying through there at 70 MPH. I find it beyond comical that these claims are even taken seriously but alas the fictional depiction of utter chaos and throw a little more dramatics on as icing on the cake make the story is as bleak as possible seems to work every time. Disingenuous, shameful, deceitful, deceptive just a few words that come to mind. Why not just be honest about your intentions and spit out what it is you really want, it's OK no need to be embarrassed we already know.

You're as transparent as a piece of glass and we all see right through you... but no worries your postings are useful for one thing - comic relief.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

You didn't read my last travelogue on the Barber's Pole NWZ?


We're describing the same place, but we're describing different times.

The four hours I spent between 8-AM to 10-AM appeared differently from the one hour you spent between 12 to 12:30.

How could they not want a NWZ in front of their launch point?

The BP residents throwing rocks from their docking spaces—I now realize—were "manually dredging" the shallows under their boats. This was keep their boats from striking-bottom, after wakes had roughed-up their boats.

Leaving, I had this feeling I should put on my PFD as I entered the waters south of Barber's Pole.

On my southbound return trip, I realize that some boaters just don't care.

I support the NWZ at Barber's Pole, even as my own needs for wake protection can never be provided: a breakwater wasn't granted a permit—and neither would a NWZ ever happen here.

I enjoy watching folks playing on the waters: it's a shame that those with oversized boats can't go tubing in The Broads—a scant ½-mile away. They disrupt enjoyments of everyone else in front of my location—tossing our boats and shallows into a roiled mayhem. The anarchy of wake damage occurs within their eyesight, though they choose not to see it first-hand, behind them.

A friend from Camp Wyanoke days visited me on Sunday: we watched as the wakes hammered in. Imagine getting wet 10-feet above the lake!

Though he lives in sight across our shared harbor, he was impressed by the forces that were unleashed along my shoreline.

From Port Wedeln he can clearly see boats rafting in Johnson's Cove. He is not affected by the oversized boats that "commute" to Johnson's Cove on weekends. His location is less "waked", as he is on the "outside" of wakes—our side gets hammered, as we're on "the inside".

It is no different at Barber's Pole.

We both remarked that a 22' outboard "lobster-boat style" boat that is manufactured locally, leaves a very modest wake—indeed. It appears to be the perfect Lake Winnipesaukee boat for all reasons—barring the weather extremes that can sink a Cobalt. ('Though maybe it was actually a better boat in that circumstance—even given its smaller size.)

Even boats of "only" 24-feet can throw a wake that can overturn the unsuspecting jon-boat or canoe. We can suspect an oversized boat damaged a seaplane last week. The two recorded 2010 hypothermia fatalities could have oversized boats to blame.

'Sorry this reply is late, by a day: I managed seven posts on Sunday—for whatever reason that was permitted. All day long on Monday, I never lost the error-message that said "You have exceeded five posts in a 24-hour period". I'm not a "numbers person" at all. I don't understand the algorithm that controls my replies intermittantly—then blocks them.

At bottom, I support the NWZ at Barber's Pole. Any reasonable person would, as well. Residents who fund this state through property taxes should have this slightest of courtesies extended.

I viewed the clatter, barking, and banging at Cow Island as a peculiar form of noise-pollution, but any headline that could follow misadventure, is worth two minutes of delay when transiting the narrows at Barber's Pole.

IMHO.

You keep referring to "oversize boats". How do you define an oversize boat? What makes your determination correct? Could someone with a different perspective define a 15 foot Whaler or a kayak as an undersized boat? What would make them correct?

If you are trying to establish that a certain sized wake establishes the criteria for a no wake zone would you expect that anytime and any place that the same size wake reaches the shore on Winnipesaukee it should be a no wake zone in that area too? Do you think that people that have property on more open parts of the lake don't see any boat wakes hit the shoreline in front of their house?

I have been on the lake for over 40 years and bought a home on the lake many years ago in an area that has substantial waves, especially on the weekends. I own two other pieces of property on the lake, one of which is in a no wake zone.

I accept what is here and the changes that have occurred and realize that if I don't like it, I can move on. I would suggest that anyone else who owns property on the lake has the same option. If you want the small lake atmosphere, go to a small lake.

[ApS]

(Previously quoted)

I seriously question the wisdom of using such a device.

1) The device is relatively small: When it's sunny, we'll get blinding flashes off of the windshields of moored bowriders. It's even worse when wakes from oversized boats are present to rock them.

2) Tuesday, I had to use the PED on a floatplane: He'd taken off in the normal fashion, but he then turned into the wind and became a threat to my 20' mast. You'd have to be a dunce NOT to communicate in this manner: Floatplanes see nothing on the lake after "rotation". A brief flash was all that I can muster. With today's proliferating noise pollution, a whistle is hardly useful today—anywhere.

Pilots see ground flashes every minute—especially off ponds and skylights.

This is not a lazer.

You know I really don't try to be be confrontational with you, but I still have no clue what you are talking about. And I am sure I am not alone.

After reading VtSteve's so-called answer, I think the topic is above the heads of most. It is also difficult to talk "around" the subject of Sedition on this forum: If you haven't seen and understood this chalkboard's message, there's nothing to talk about, anyway: http://api.ning.com/files/zaKh6yndI5...8033100939.jpg

The chalkboarder's technique is important, however, and you'll find that very technique here—and at the SOS forum. With only 45,000 members, they still attempt to overwhelm a naive public: If bluster, vote-fraud and obfuscation don't work, they instead use intimidation.

It's the national problem of bullying—brought to the issues found within our sorely-abused inland waters. I think the few of us opposed to oversized boats here at this forum, suffer only a little—at the constant criticism and the tactics of shadiness: but some have suffered unduly.

Just ask winni.com member, LRSLA.

I do find it humorous that some of the biggest performance boat haters on this forum seem to spend a lot of time on performance boat forums. Thank you because without you posting about them here I would never have known about them!

You may find that bluster and threats are your kind of answers, but there is much to dislike about the arrogance found amply among SOS boaters.

Be sure to check on their choice of firearms aboard and their propensity for liquor. Search "Tanqueray" for a thread on drinking aboard, and some light may glow near the VitaBene horizon.

I've seen only one SOS member who agreed with SOTD, TB, BI, ApS and elchase. His was the most introspective response there in a decade. He was full of empathy for the boaters who weren't elite and smug, "30-somethings".

Among the usual wildly self-congratulatory SOS membership—nobody came forward to counter his argument. His arguments against night travel at high speeds was particularly convincing.

SOS is the only forum of whom I'm aware, has called Don a Nazi in print.

You keep referring to "oversize boats". How do you define an oversize boat? What makes your determination correct? Could someone with a different perspective define a 15 foot Whaler or a kayak as an undersized boat? What would make them correct?

If you are trying to establish that a certain sized wake establishes the criteria for a no wake zone would you expect that anytime and any place that the same size wake reaches the shore on Winnipesaukee it should be a no wake zone in that area too? Do you think that people that have property on more open parts of the lake don't see any boat wakes hit the shoreline in front of their house?

I have been on the lake for over 40 years and bought a home on the lake many years ago in an area that has substantial waves, especially on the weekends. I own two other pieces of property on the lake, one of which is in a no wake zone.

I accept what is here and the changes that have occurred and realize that if I don't like it, I can move on. I would suggest that anyone else who owns property on the lake has the same option. If you want the small lake atmosphere, go to a small lake.

1) We put actual "sweat-equity" into clearing our lot for our cottage.

We have "skin" in this game.

Since this has been the family's cottage for over a half-century, perhaps you can understand why I prefer to restore some sanity to this lake. You will find a "small lake atmosphere" in every Winnipesaukee cove, bay and harbor. That's why the issues exist in the first place.

If you'd lived in those places, you'd see oversized boats enter coves from open water—only to throw their oversized boat into wide-open throttle. The sound is similar to a truck engine about to throw a rod—if the sound is not overwhelmed by inadequate muffling.

2) When I had the feeling that I was overseeing Chaos and Anarchy on Lake Winnipesaukee, I wrote a letter to a local editor. It appeared in print three days before Littlefield withdrew his 4½-ton Baja from the eyes of NHMP investigators.

Littlefield''s response to a retiree's personal disaster, crushed to death while a passenger in a lesser boat—right in the middle of Lake Winnipesaukee—is no different than what is seen (if not urged) at SOS.

SOS is always saddened by the "accidental deaths" of its many members, but always the first in line to defend their frequent depredations on lesser boats.

"They were fishing in the channel!"

When referring to oversized boats, I'd put the following discussion at the top of my answer. You don't need anything greater than what was widely recommended here, last year.

Recently, a much larger Cobalt sank in rough Winnipesaukee waters. There are times when intentionally embarking on Winnipesaukee's rough waters should be reconsidered.

Weather is "big" with me.

The 22' Eastern is plenty; also, even the largest of pontoon boats don't affect me or my shoreline with their wakes. You have to sit and observe in coves, bays and harbors to witness this.

Each passage of an oversized boat at BP affects both sides of BP-residents' homes, boats, shorelines and docks: that passage may even be done multiple times each day. Even some smaller boats cannot be excluded from the criticism of their wake-making effects there.

Look deeply within yourself: It's not the residents' fault that this NWZ has come about.

Conditions at Barber's Pole are worse than any of Winnipesaukee's other coves, bays, and harbors.

IMHO.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

You may find that bluster and threats are your kind of answers, but there is much to dislike about the arrogance found amply among SOS boaters.

Be sure to check on their choice of firearms aboard and their propensity for liquor. Search "Tanqueray" for a thread on drinking aboard, and some light may glow near the VitaBene horizon.

I've seen only one SOS member who agreed with SOTD, TB, BI, ApS and elchase. His was the most introspective response there in a decade. He was full of empathy for the boaters who weren't elite and smug, "30-somethings".

Among the usual wildly self-congratulatory SOS membership—nobody came forward to counter his argument. His arguments against night travel at high speeds was particularly convincing.

SOS is the only forum of whom I'm aware, has called Don a Nazi in print.

IMHO.

APS are you saying that I am threatening you in any way? if so you may need to seek professional help.

I don't even know what an SOS forum is, when I googled it the 10 top hits weren't about boats.

Regarding guns on boats: while I have a license to carry in MA and NH, I don't think I ever have on my boat. Now if I were offshore in certain foreign waters, I would do so.

Regarding drinking alcohol on my boat, It happens just about every time we are on the water. It is perfectly legal and safe. I should not even have to add this disclaimer but knowing how APS Parsi works, the operator of my vessel is never under the influence of alcohol.

You, sir, and your cronies need to stop trying to lump everyone who disagrees with your positions as thugs and outlaws. It is untrue, and frankly makes people see you for what you are.

[jrc]

Well APS, it's one thing to play around with flashing boaters in a state controlled lake.

But stating in a public forum that you intentionally flashed a mirror in a pilots eyes, during take-off and not for emergency reasons, might rise to a new level.

Maybe some of the pilots on this board can answer. Maybe I'll send an email to the FAA.

[Kracken]

APS,

In your opinion, are the waves in the Barber’s Pole area bigger/more damaging than those on the Broads side of Rattlesnake?

Last weekend they were certainly not but as somebody who spends more time in that area I would like to know your opinion.

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

(Previously quoted)


1) The device is relatively small: When it's sunny, we'll get blinding flashes off of the windshields of moored bowriders. It's even worse when wakes from oversized boats are present to rock them.

2) Tuesday, I had to use the PED on a floatplane: He'd taken off in the normal fashion, but he then turned into the wind and became a threat to my 20' mast. You'd have to be a dunce NOT to communicate in this manner: Floatplanes see nothing on the lake after "rotation". A brief flash was all that I can muster. With today's proliferating noise pollution, a whistle is hardly useful today—anywhere.

Pilots see ground flashes every minute—especially off ponds and skylights.

This is not a lazer.

After reading VtSteve's so-called answer, I think the topic is above the heads of most. It is also difficult to talk "around" the subject of Sedition on this forum: If you haven't seen and understood this chalkboard's message, there's nothing to talk about, anyway: http://api.ning.com/files/zaKh6yndI5...8033100939.jpg

The chalkboarder's technique is important, however, and you'll find that very technique here—and at the SOS forum. With only 45,000 members, they still attempt to overwhelm a naive public: If bluster, vote-fraud and obfuscation don't work, they instead use intimidation.

It's the national problem of bullying—brought to the issues found within our sorely-abused inland waters. I think the few of us opposed to oversized boats here at this forum, suffer only a little—at the constant criticism and the tactics of shadiness: but some have suffered unduly.

Just ask winni.com member, LRSLA.

You may find that bluster and threats are your kind of answers, but there is much to dislike about the arrogance found amply among SOS boaters.

Be sure to check on their choice of firearms aboard and their propensity for liquor. Search "Tanqueray" for a thread on drinking aboard, and some light may glow near the VitaBene horizon.

I've seen only one SOS member who agreed with SOTD, TB, BI, ApS and elchase. His was the most introspective response there in a decade. He was full of empathy for the boaters who weren't elite and smug, "30-somethings".

Among the usual wildly self-congratulatory SOS membership—nobody came forward to counter his argument. His arguments against night travel at high speeds was particularly convincing.

SOS is the only forum of whom I'm aware, has called Don a Nazi in print.

1) We put actual "sweat-equity" into clearing our lot for our cottage.

We have "skin" in this game.

Since this has been the family's cottage for over a half-century, perhaps you can understand why I prefer to restore some sanity to this lake. You will find a "small lake atmosphere" in every Winnipesaukee cove, bay and harbor. That's why the issues exist in the first place.

If you'd lived in those places, you'd see oversized boats enter coves from open water—only to throw their oversized boat into wide-open throttle. The sound is similar to a truck engine about to throw a rod—if the sound is not overwhelmed by inadequate muffling.

2) When I had the feeling that I was overseeing Chaos and Anarchy on Lake Winnipesaukee, I wrote a letter to a local editor. It appeared in print three days before Littlefield withdrew his 4½-ton Baja from the eyes of NHMP investigators.

Littlefield''s response to a retiree's personal disaster, crushed to death while a passenger in a lesser boat—right in the middle of Lake Winnipesaukee—is no different than what is seen (if not urged) at SOS.

SOS is always saddened by the "accidental deaths" of its many members, but always the first in line to defend their frequent depredations on lesser boats.



When referring to oversized boats, I'd put the following discussion at the top of my answer. You don't need anything greater than what was widely recommended here, last year.

Recently, a much larger Cobalt sank in rough Winnipesaukee waters. There are times when intentionally embarking on Winnipesaukee's rough waters should be reconsidered.

Weather is "big" with me.

The 22' Eastern is plenty; also, even the largest of pontoon boats don't affect me or my shoreline with their wakes. You have to sit and observe in coves, bays and harbors to witness this.

Each passage of an oversized boat at BP affects both sides of BP-residents' homes, boats, shorelines and docks: that passage may even be done multiple times each day. Even some smaller boats cannot be excluded from the criticism of their wake-making effects there.

Look deeply within yourself: It's not the residents' fault that this NWZ has come about.

Conditions at Barber's Pole are worse than any of Winnipesaukee's other coves, bays, and harbors.

IMHO.

I think this would make for an interesting psychiatric study at some medical school!

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by Kracken

APS,

In your opinion, are the waves in the Barber’s Pole area bigger/more damaging than those on the Broads side of Rattlesnake?

Last weekend they were certainly not but as somebody who spends more time in that area I would like to know your opinion.

Could supporters of the NWZ for the BP area please post some video as Hazelnut did to support their arguement rather than all rehtoric that keeps getting posted?

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by Ryan

It's not going to happen.

There's no way to effectively record people's feelings or fear.

Although, I would imagine it would look something like this...

Ryan, are you sure this is not someone from Squirrel or Birch Island? I think I saw this sme person on their dock last Saturday around 1:30pm.

I posted what I posted as I know, we will never get a video from the likes of SOTD, TB, El, etc... to support their arguement. I was really hoping APS would shoot some nice video. My hopes are dashed.

[ApS]

Well, I see that some people have suddenly taken me off "Ignore".

Where is OCDactive on this? Why the silence?

Kracken, the wind has just "come-up" so I'll have to use one of my few remaining posts to advise you that is a good question—but did you mean, waves or wakes?

The other topics of "FAA-intimidation" and "needing help-intimidation" will just have to wait until later—but hopefully, this evening will see time for replying.

[winni83]

I was the source of the quote by APS regarding the wisdom of using such a device (posts #166 and #171). The issue of whether one is temporarily blinded by the use of such a device will be looked at from the perspective of the eyes of the beholder and not the flasher. The significant difference between the PED and reflections off other boats or water surfaces is that the PED is being aimed at someone. In any given circumstance, APS has no idea what the effect will be since he cannot be at the sending and receiving end at the same time (or maybe he can – see below). Just one small example of the utter arrogance of this crowd. Were APS to use such a device towards my eyes, I would not hesitate for a second to report him. As an aside, the algorithm which apparently limits the number of posts APS can make within a given time period is commonly known as an APSED – an APS Exclusionary Device.

Obviously, there has been a death among the deities and APS, SOTD, TB, BI, El-C et. al. have been appointed to determine infallibly what is reasonable and civilized for us all, whether it be speed, horsepower, size or type of boat, no wake zones or whatever else annoys or disturbs them from time to time. From the recent observations of APS about the alleged goings on at Cow Island, I am waiting for some proposals to further regulate barking dogs, music and other “cowboy behavior”, apart from existing laws and regulations. It just is not civilized, don’t you see, and such rowdy behavior unduly interferes with one’s tranquility.

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by gtagrip

Could supporters of the NWZ for the BP area please post some video as Hazelnut did to support their arguement rather than all rehtoric that keeps getting posted?

Why in god's name would the BP residents want or need to do so? Their petition for a NWZ has received approval. So now they would want approval from the GFBL crowd as well. Maybe SBONH could get involved and solicit input from around the country (and even China?) as to how they feel about a BP NWZ ("afterall, your channel could be next").

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Why in god's name would the BP residents want or need to do so? Their petition for a NWZ has received approval. So now they would want approval from the GFBL crowd as well. Maybe SBONH could get involved and solicit input from around the country (and even China?) as to how they feel about a BP NWZ ("afterall, your channel could be next").

Hey, look who crawled out from under its shell...

Because the BP residents were not heard from as has been discussed and noted numerous times on this thread. A few families were heard from, not all of the BP residents nor anyone else that will be effected. That is not to say that a NWZ is not warranted, but let the process go through as it should. (Kind of like the SL study that was cut short).

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

Hey, look who crawled out from under its shell...

Because the BP residents were not heard from as has been discussed and noted numerous times on this thread. A few families were heard from, not all of the BP residents nor anyone else that will be effected. That is not to say that a NWZ is not warranted, but let the process go through as it should. (Kind of like the SL study that was cut short).

Huh, let's try to respond to your post, but in English...too much Tanqueray? You know, you can use the edit feature. It does seem that I too put myself in danger of one of your "midnight missives" but the residents of the BP seem to have expressed their concerns quite eloquently. It would seem that there needs to be a rule that SBONH members/officers should not be allowed to correspond on Winni.com after cocktail hour.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Kracken

APS,
In your opinion, are the waves in the Barber’s Pole area bigger/more damaging than those on the Broads side of Rattlesnake?
Last weekend they were certainly not but as somebody who spends more time in that area I would like to know your opinion.

I love Rattlesnake Island.

If I were to buy there, I'd want to be right on the "nose" of the storm; unfortunately, that NNE lot is washing into the lake, especially the Broads-side of that property. That lot has the double-advantage of the cleanest air on the lake, with no roiling of bottom sediments being drawn into a pipeline for water.

Sailing is tricky because of katabatic winds that can swirl backwards at the shoreline, and can draw you in—against a boulder-strewn shoreline.

Wakes in The Broads are subject to self-cancelling against other wakes and wind-driven waves.

Waves are fierce, sometimes, producing water blown across two breakwaters at a time. Someday, the full length of Rattlesnake—Broads-side—will be lined with breakwaters.

I'd support the lining—along both sides—of Barber's Pole, with breakwaters paid for by SBONH. It's so rewarding—to give BP the shirt off someone else's back—I feel so "progressive".

If what you're really asking, is that faster is better, I'd have to go with breakwaters for BP. Unless you allow only pontoon boats through there, there are too many different hull shapes to support "faster".

If you've ever motored in a canal, you'd see that BP has the double-whammy of channel waters, which respond to boat displacement with a rise in a small highly-localized "tide"—and then gets struck with wakes that can damage: more boats simultaneously, equals a greater effect against the shoreline.

The dredging of individual boat slips would help boat owners, but shoreline beaches will still find toddlers subject to being knocked over.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

It would seem that there needs to be a rule that SBONH members/officers should not be allowed to correspond on Winni.com after cocktail hour.

Maybe SBONH could get involved and solicit input from around the country (and even China?) as to how they feel about a BP NWZ ("afterall, your channel could be next")

TT, you can make the rules for your organizations as you see fit, but I can assure you that SBONH does not need suggestions regarding its mission or operation from you. If you want to join, that is a different story. Please visit the website and sign up- it's so easy even you can do it!

I have no need to edit my post from last evening, but I will let others read and decide for themselves. In case some are not aware of what TT stands for, I will spell it out: TT=Turtle Troll. Just like the rest of your ilk (ElChase and SOTD), you hide behind your keyboards snickering as you agitate and get threads closed while contributing virtually nothing to any other parts of this site.

BTW, never had gin in my life, Tangueray or otherwise. I am partial to big Napa Valley Cabernets though so if you have any suggestions please pass them on.

Have a good day

[ApS]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

I don't even know what an SOS forum is, when I googled it the 10 top hits weren't about boats...You, sir, and your cronies need to stop trying to lump everyone who disagrees with your positions as thugs and outlaws. It is untrue, and frankly makes people see you for what you are.

If you failed to reach SOS after I provided the link to it earlier, I don't see how you can write a responsible disclaimer. You're saying that those who disagree are "not thugs and outlaws", but haven't spent the two minutes that could convince you otherwise. Perhaps the term "sociopath" is better applied—yes—there are sociopaths on our waters: read about it, there.

Originally Posted by VitaBene

APS are you saying that I am threatening you in any way? if so you may need to seek professional help.

My entire career has been immersed in threats: a colleague was murdered recently.

A lifetime of various life-threatening adventure—and misadventure—has unured me to intimidation and threats.

Others here are not so callous to the specter of on-line intimidation.

Some PMs have emerged to indicate "incipient" intimidation; others, like "We Won!" are suggestive of fantasy to this reader.

On the other hand, buckling-up in the passenger seat of a race car—to train a stranger who wants to race his sportscar—is certainly the appropriate time to bring in "professional help" for me!

Originally Posted by VitaBene

Regarding drinking alcohol on my boat, It happens just about every time we are on the water. It is perfectly legal and safe. I should not even have to add this disclaimer but knowing how APS Parsi works, the operator of my vessel is never under the influence of alcohol.

It may be legal, but it is definitely not "safe".

No amount of alcohol is safe on the water: the first sip of alcohol clouds Judgment—and Judgment isn't helped by additional alcohol.

The actions of rough waters, wind, dehydration, exposure and sun—take a serious toll on a captain's physical resources—even without having alcohol in his system.

The on-board carry of an Intoxilyzer® is the only sure measure of a captain's reaction to alcohol's influence.

In other waters, authorities can board a vessel with very little "official cause": once aboard, a captain's own testimony can find himself arrested on the spot. Lake Winnipesaukee has a LFOD attitude to alcohol-use aboard a boat. Lt. Dunleavey once spoke of 40% having alcohol on board.

Given Barber's Pole's curved and narrow shoreline, the slower the passage of a "40% boat", is best for the residents of that area. It's a shame that the "60% boats" are punished by the others, but some sub-sets of our population can have that effect on our regulations.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

It may be legal, but it is definitely not "safe".

No amount of alcohol is safe on the water: the first sip of alcohol clouds Judgment—and Judgment isn't helped by additional alcohol.

The actions of rough waters, wind, dehydration, exposure and sun—take a serious toll on a captain's physical resources—even without having alcohol in his system.

The on-board carry of an Intoxilyzer® is the only sure measure of a captain's reaction to alcohol's influence.

In other waters, authorities can board a vessel with very little "official cause": once aboard, a captain's own testimony can find himself arrested on the spot. Lake Winnipesaukee has a LFOD attitude to alcohol-use aboard a boat. Lt. Dunleavey once spoke of 40% having alcohol on board.

Given Barber's Pole's curved and narrow shoreline, the slower the passage of a "40% boat", is best for the residents of that area. It's a shame that the "60% boats" are punished by the others, but some sub-sets of our population can have that effect on our regulations.

I have asked this of you before, with no response. So I will ask again.
What is so unsafe about having alcohol aboard a boat? He stated plainly that the operator of the vessel is never under the influence. So are you saying that it is unsafe for a responsible adult to have an alcoholic beverage onboard a boat?

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Why in god's name would the BP residents want or need to do so? Their petition for a NWZ has received approval. So now they would want approval from the GFBL crowd as well. Maybe SBONH could get involved and solicit input from around the country (and even China?) as to how they feel about a BP NWZ ("afterall, your channel could be next").

Bzzzzzzzt wrong! The residents of the Barbers Pole have not had their say. I can not say this enough. Apparently you and a few others can not (or will not) recognize or understand that two families do not make up "the residents" of the Barbers Pole. If you would like to you could say, "two families and their friends have had their say." That would be acceptable to your argument.

This topic has gone horribly astray from the original post. Let's at least try to stay on topic with this. I was up this weekend and opted not to video. Not because there were any crazy incidents that I am trying to hide. Quite the contrary. It was so windy all weekend that I do not believe it would be fair to post videos of Saturday and Sunday because traffic was so light. If I posted videos that I took this weekend it would have shown very few boats and what few were out would have been seen obeying the laws just about 99% of the time. I saw little if any infractions. It was a holiday weekend but as I said the wind kept many captains on shore.

I saw a number of people go on the wrong side of the marker in the channel. I've never seen anyone hit a rock over there. The more I look at the channel the more I see the best solution being the removal of the few rocks in the channel and subsequently removing the marker. It'll probably never happen though.

I also saw what appeared to be a non-uniformed MP in an MP boat scoping out the channel for a while on Friday. I believe it was Friday. Anyway, could have been Barrett or someone. Hopefully he will render an opinion on this one. I'd be happy to go along with his recommendation, whatever it may be.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Bzzzzzzzt wrong!

I saw a number of people go on the wrong side of the marker in the channel. I've never seen anyone hit a rock over there. The more I look at the channel the more I see the best solution being the removal of the few rocks in the channel and subsequently removing the marker.

Now there's an idea. Remove some of the many rocks in the Barber's Pole, one of the better fishing spots on the whole lake, so you and your GFBL friends could tear through the area even less encumbered? REALITY CHECK

[ApS]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Well I spent an hour from about 12 or 12:30 on Saturday in the BP zone just to watch the mayhem. Guess what? I saw just the opposite. 5-6 times I watched as numerous boats approached each other and every time all parties came to headway speed when appropriate. Everything looked very orderly to me.
Found HN's camp and lingered out front for a minute but no boats were present so I moved on. Wanted to introduce myself HN, maybe next time.

If you found HN's camp, then you also found the widest part of the Barber's Pole channel.

If you overlooked Squirrel Island, you overlooked the narrowest part of the Barber's Pole channel.

Originally Posted by chipj29

I have asked this of you before, with no response. So I will ask again.
What is so unsafe about having alcohol aboard a boat? He stated plainly that the operator of the vessel is never under the influence. So are you saying that it is unsafe for a responsible adult to have an alcoholic beverage onboard a boat?

When "responsible" and alcoholic" appear in the same sentence, antennae should go up. Hopefully, a boating future holds nothing alcoholic to imperil Barber's Pole lakeside residents.

Houses on Eagle Island and Diamond Island would disagree—if only houses could vote. Having just left the thread on Annalee Dolls, I recall that Parker Island have homes that were likewise endangered with alcohol on board.

If you must ask if Boating and Alcohol are Unsafe—I don't want to be anywhere nearby—not that I can do anything about it: an empty bottle of Heiniken-Lite appeared on my beach this Labor Day weekend.

(The first bottle ever!)

Headlines still refer to the latest alcohol-based collision: somewhere out on the lake, an alcohol-imbiber is waiting to make boating headlines.

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Apparently you and a few others can not (or will not) recognize or understand that two families do not make up "the residents" of the Barbers Pole.

Who was it, who first said, "This lake belongs to everybody"?

Originally Posted by hazelnut

I was up this weekend and opted not to video...I saw little if any infractions...It was a holiday weekend but as I said the wind kept many captains on shore.

The very purpose of videotaping is to show it to those concerned about the Barber's Pole "wake" circumstance—a holiday weekend would be ideal.

The wind was strong, but small sailboats did go forth—I elected to stay on the dock. From that location, there were boats to be seen everywhere. Even if blind, you could hear their wakes hammering the shoreline—and even feel the slamming against your feet!

That you saw "little if any infractions" isn't a good reason to stop videotaping: any infractions should be exposed, for a viewer to judge for himself.

Those boats came from somewhere: Not videotaping was an error.

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

This topic has gone horribly astray from the original post. Let's at least try to stay on topic with this. I was up this weekend and opted not to video. Not because there were any crazy incidents that I am trying to hide. Quite the contrary. It was so windy all weekend that I do not believe it would be fair to post videos of Saturday and Sunday because traffic was so light. If I posted videos that I took this weekend it would have shown very few boats and what few were out would have been seen obeying the laws just about 99% of the time. I saw little if any infractions. It was a holiday weekend but as I said the wind kept many captains on shore.

I saw a number of people go on the wrong side of the marker in the channel. I've never seen anyone hit a rock over there. The more I look at the channel the more I see the best solution being the removal of the few rocks in the channel and subsequently removing the marker. It'll probably never happen though.

You've got to be kidding! Now I've heard everything. While we're at it, let's remove those irritating Twin Islands in Moultonboro Bay. Maybe SBONH could get Jim Forsythe to sponsor it come November if elected. Also, while we're on the topic, that 90 degree ledge on the north side of Diamond Island...how much work would it be to blast it down to 45 degrees at the water line so any boat hitting it at high speed would be directed up and out rather than having an abrupt stop. That little cabin behind the ledge looks like a piece of junk...let's move it back and to the side. The whole project seems as easy or easier than your BP proposal.

Stay tuned next week when we discuss eliminating Devons Island at the Hole in the Wall...talk about another nuisance...and has anyone ever seen people in that one lone cottage there? It's for sure a single (selfish) family standing in the way of improved traffic flow on the lake.

[Dhuberty24]

[QUOTE=Acres per Second;139505]If you must ask if Boating and Alcohol are Unsafe—I don't want to be anywhere nearby—


That is all we have to do.

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Now there's an idea. Remove some of the many rocks in the Barber's Pole, one of the better fishing spots on the whole lake, so you and your GFBL friends could tear through the area even less encumbered? REALITY CHECK

Why would boats be tearing through the BP if the SL is soooo effective?

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by gtagrip

Why would boats be tearing through the BP if the SL is soooo effective?

Easy answer - people like SOTD are interested in pushing an agenda, it has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the SL. That's the reason why ridiculous comments like this are made even though they show blatantly that their ideas simply don't work BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION. It's all about power and control based on their idea of how things should be and of course what makes them "feel" good. Some are just so pathetic they can't even make a point without contradiction.