*New Proposed No Wake Zone*

[TomC]

don't the YMCA camps use this area for water skiing/tubing/etc? If so, that will put a damper on that activity also. Its not like they can load up dozens of kids and take them elsewhere.

[cowisl]

If people followed existing rules, you wouldnt need a NWZ! My family has property on Barbers Pole and a majority of people do not know what 150' means!

[chocophile]

We went through the Barber's Pole area last weekend as a canoe with three people tried to cross that area between the mainland and the islands -- near Pick Point. They seemed inexperienced and weren't maintaining a straight course. I came off plane and slowed to no-wake speed, but the boat coming in from the broads slowed to max-wake speed and nearly swamped the canoe. The boat in back of me came close before he slowed to max-wake speed also and was on a course to pass me.

It continues to amaze me that people think max-wake speed is a good strategy in those situations.

The boat in back of me should have realized there was a reason I had slowed, rather than trying to go around me.

That area isn't very good for canoes, kayaks and sunfish, but I have seen them fairly often. They have every right to be there, and boaters should be more courteous. At the same time, if I lived in that area I wouldn't let anyone try to cross to the islands during busy periods.

Having been in a kayak that was nearly swamped by a too-close max-wake boater, I think there should be more education about that particular situation.

If everything goes right along the Barber's Pole, there's no problem. But I have frequently seen discourteous or illegal actions by boaters that raise safety issues.

Unfortunately, a no-wake zone might be needed.

[Lakegeezer]

When there is no problem 99% of the time, it is stupid to put in a new rule to address the 1%. As with other problem areas, existing rules apply. Going by a canoe at maximum wake is illegal. No need to impose restrictions on those boating during the week or in the off-months. If you are 150 feet from shore - there should be no restrictions on wake. Or, at least make the rule only apply on busy hours during summer weekends. The address to give the state input is in the first posting. Hopefully enough of us will take the time to give it.

[DEJ]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

When there is no problem 99% of the time, it is stupid to put in a new rule to address the 1%. As with other problem areas, existing rules apply. Going by a canoe at maximum wake is illegal. No need to impose restrictions on those boating during the week or in the off-months. If you are 150 feet from shore - there should be no restrictions on wake. Or, at least make the rule only apply on busy hours during summer weekends. The address to give the state input is in the first posting. Hopefully enough of us will take the time to give it.

Lakegeezer is right on the mark with his comments. No need for additional laws or restrictions since we currently have laws that address most every issue. I have been through this area when an MP boat was sitting off to the side just watching, it is amazing how many boaters all of a sudden know the laws when MP is around.

[Excalibur]

Originally Posted by DEJ

Lakegeezer is right on the mark with his comments. No need for additional laws or restrictions since we currently have laws that address most every issue. I have been through this area when an MP boat was sitting off to the side just watching, it is amazing how many boaters all of a sudden know the laws when MP is around.

Maybe on nice sunny weekends the marine patrol should anchor a few of there craft empty in some of the bonehead zones as a deterrent

I know a lot of local towns park empty police cruisers on the side of the road with a big teddy bear in it. Its effective in keeping everyone honest.

[Kracken]

Does NH Marine Patrol have a recommendation on this?

Many years ago there was a push to make part of Alton Bay a no wake zone. From Sandy Point all the way to the river. The petition was started by a few (no longer residents) on the east shore perpendicular to the markers off Sandy Point. Most boaters believed (and some still do) that the only safe passage is between the eastern most marker and the east shore. This created a bottleneck and boaters coming on and off plane creating large wakes and causing damage to the shoreline.

The Marine Patrol deemed a “No-Wake” zone was unnecessary. Educating boaters on the markers was the solution.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

When there is no problem 99% of the time, it is stupid to put in a new rule to address the 1%. As with other problem areas, existing rules apply. Going by a canoe at maximum wake is illegal. No need to impose restrictions on those boating during the week or in the off-months. If you are 150 feet from shore- there should be no restrictions on wake. Or, at least make the rule only apply on busy hours during summer weekends. The address to give the state input is in the first posting. Hopefully enough of us will take the time to give it.

I totally 100% agree. How many times must it be said... you CANNOT legislate responsibility?

Put all the laws on the books isn't going to fix a thing when the two following variables are in play and always will be:

a. Total ignorance or outright defiance of the law
b. Limited resources to enforce said laws, which let's face it are subject to select enforcement at times.

While that stretch does see a fair amount of traffic it is hardly so narrow that two boats if properly driven cannot pass on plane safely and still maintain 150' off shore and eachother. If not the laws already exist to deal with those situations and I submit that if it's still a problem then I reference point a above and say what difference does another law make when it's a reality exacerbated by point b.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

I totally 100% agree. How many times must it be said... you CANNOT legislate responsibility?

Put all the laws on the books isn't going to fix a thing when the two following variables are in play and always will be:

a. Total ignorance or outright defiance of the law
b. Limited resources to enforce said laws, which let's face it are subject to select enforcement at times.

While that stretch does see a fair amount of traffic it is hardly so narrow that two boats if properly driven cannot pass on plane safely and still maintain 150' off shore and eachother. If not the laws already exist to deal with those situations and I submit that if it's still a problem then I reference point a above and say what difference does another law make when it's a reality exacerbated by point b.

Agreed ! I was exiting the channel, headed out into the Broads and had 3 boats incoming towards me. I slowed a bit to let them sort themselves out and let everyone line up for a port-port pass. At that time Capt B came up "fast" behind me and then 20' off my stern slowed and then went to pass on my starboard. If he had bothered to look he'd have seen the other boats but alas boneheads is as boneheads do. But nooo, he went to pass, got along/ahead ofd me and then saw the other boats and then slowed to max wake speed only to cut 20' behind me again. Mee was more livid than I, I was a bit busy sorting out the incoming traffic. A NWZ there might have helped though who's to say Capt B would bother obeying that. What's not taught in any classroom is "situational awareness".

Then again who says Capt B can learn ....