*New Proposed No Wake Zone*

[winni83]

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

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by winni83

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

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

[winni83]

It is not my document. It is WinnFabs.

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

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

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Since you asked...Winnfabs was established to establish a speed limit for the lake in response to concerns of the economic health, equal access, safety, and noise issues on the lake. This mission was achieved when the SL passed.

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

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by Dave R

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

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

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

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

TB,

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

Thanks.....

[Kracken]

Yeah got it,

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




Let’s move on,

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

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by Kracken

Yeah got it,

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




Let’s move on,

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

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

[DEJ]

From the Granite State News:

Petitioners for a no wake
zone between the southeastern
tip of Little Birch Island
and lot #17 on the mainland
to a point between Lot #284
on Cow Island and lot #3 on
the mainland in Lake Winnipesaukee
were successful
following a hearing on July
16 at the Old Town Hall with
the Department of Safety.

[Just Sold]

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

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

[DEJ]

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

[Just Sold]

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

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

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

[DEJ]

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

[hazelnut]

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

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

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

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

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

[DEJ]

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

[jrc]

Effective when? Anyone know?

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

It looks smaller on the satellite photos then I remember.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

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

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

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

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

I'll report my opinions later.

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

Thanks
H-Nut

[Just Sold]

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

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

[hazelnut]

Hold your horses everyone.

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

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

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

H-Nut

[tis]

I have news for you Hazelnut. Your boats will still be trashed. Most people don't know what no wake means. You are better off if they go full speed through there.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Hold your horses everyone.

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

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

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

H-Nut

Hazelnut;

I appreciate your honest comments from someone who lives there.

I am curious however there are many places on the lake that get brutalized by waves and wakes such as the broads side of Rattlesnake and even my camp on the Southwest side of Welch. Obviously we can't request a no wake zone (and wouldn't want to) and many have put in boat lifts to cure the problem. While I realize a boat lift is not cheap would it not solve your problem??

Thanks!

Dan

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

Hazelnut;

I appreciate your honest comments from someone who lives there.

I am curious however there are many places on the lake that get brutalized by waves and wakes such as the broads side of Rattlesnake and even my camp on the Southwest side of Welch. Obviously we can't request a no wake zone (and wouldn't want to) and many have put in boat lifts to cure the problem. While I realize a boat lift is not cheap would it not solve your problem??

Thanks!

Dan

CHA-CHING $$$$ hahaha Exactly Dan. I just don't have the cash to drop on that right now. We are lucky to have a "crib dock?" two piers that we can tie all four corners of the boat off. So it is much better than some of my neighbors, but man you wouldn't believe how bad some of the wakes are. The boat gets tossed and literally pulls the docks and practically rips the posts down. My little 13 Whaler almost ends up sitting on top of the dock occasionally.

[VtSteve]

Sounds like our old place on Meredith Neck. Saturdays were the worst. Cruisers parading from or to Sally's Gut at plow speed. "Here comes another", and "Another". Until we developed a cradle to a tree across the cove, the boat would smash the dock wildly. That was in the 60's, 70's and 80's and beyond mind you.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Hold your horses everyone.
I may recuse myself from further discussion due to conflict of interest with myself.
H-Nut

No need to recuse yourself when your as honest and open about your postion as you have been.