*New Proposed No Wake Zone*

[OCDACTIVE]

I have mixed feelings on the no wake zone in the barber's pole. I can see where it may be warrented but again as many people pointed out there are consequences not only in that area but in others.

I would like to just bring up a discussion topic.

In my opinion I personally think the boat traffic in the barber's pole is greater then that around little bear island.. I have no data to back this up, just a personal observation.

The Hole in the Wall attracts many weekend warriors when proceeding to that part of the lake. People see the hole in the wall on many fishing shows and there is some nostalgia about passing through there.

Also the little bear passage is not as promentently known as the barbers pole. When coming from any point on the eastern part of the lake the barbers pole is logistically the only choice one has; unless they want to go out of their way up by sandy island then into moultonboro. Most people wouldn't do this unless just out for a ride. When coming from any western or central part of the lake there are 3 choices. Given 2 of the 3 are no wake zones already (hole in the wall, long island bridge) but still there are 3 ways to enter rather then only one from the eastern half of the lake.

Again just my thoughts... I wanted to see if anyone else shared these?

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

I have mixed feelings on the no wake zone in the barber's pole. I can see where it may be warrented but again as many people pointed out there are consequences not only in that area but in others.

I would like to just bring up a discussion topic.

In my opinion I personally think the boat traffic in the barber's pole is greater then that around little bear island.. I have no data to back this up, just a personal observation.

The Hole in the Wall attracts many weekend warriors when proceeding to that part of the lake. People see the hole in the wall on many fishing shows and there is some nostalgia about passing through there.

Also the little bear passage is not as promentently known as the barbers pole. When coming from any point on the eastern part of the lake the barbers pole is logistically the only choice one has; unless they want to go out of their way up by sandy island then into moultonboro. Most people wouldn't do this unless just out for a ride. When coming from any western or central part of the lake there are 3 choices. Given 2 of the 3 are no wake zones already (hole in the wall, long island bridge) but still there are 3 ways to enter rather then only one from the eastern half of the lake.

Again just my thoughts... I wanted to see if anyone else shared these?

I've been through the area in question a couple of times when it was very congested and it was rather intimidating. I imagine some of the people on the islands have had big trouble with the wakes/erosion/use of their waterfront/concern for a night time strike. One could argue that, similar to Eagle/Governor's Is. NWZ which got another boating groups support, that SBONH could consider embracing this NWZ. It could say a lot, like their support of inspections, that the organization is indeed not just about speed (though an endorsement would have to come with a lot of speed given there's just 1 day left to weigh in).JMO. What do you think OCD?

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

I've been through the area in question a couple of times when it was very congested and it was rather intimidating. I imagine some of the people on the islands have had big trouble with the wakes/erosion/use of their waterfront/concern for a night time strike. One could argue that, similar to Eagle/Governor's Is. NWZ which got another boating groups support, that SBONH could consider embracing this NWZ. It could say a lot, like their support of inspections, that the organization is indeed not just about speed (though an endorsement would have to come with a lot of speed given there's just 1 day left to weigh in).JMO. What do you think OCD?

SOTD, take your agenda elsewhere.

Where's a valid reason for moderation when you need one.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by jmen24

SOTD, take your agenda elsewhere.

Where's a valid reason for moderation when you need one.

Geez...getting a little hot under the collar there or what. You could take a few pointers from OCD in terms of moderating your posts. I may sometimes disagree with OCD but his posts are ALWAYS civil. Or are you trying to get this thread shut down ?

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Geez...getting a little hot under the collar there or what. You could take a few pointers from OCD in terms of moderating your posts. I may sometimes disagree with OCD but his posts are ALWAYS civil. Or are you trying to get this thread shut down ?

OCD, is very good at taking a baited hook, removing the barb, enjoying the snack and leaving the baiter to wonder why they didn't catch anything.

I am not so good at that, nor was I speaking for anyone other than myself.

Perhaps you should take your own advise and find some way to rise to the level of the people you call out, instead of jabbing from a dark corner hoping to score a hit.

SBONH is attempting to make a difference in the safety of Lake Winnipesaukee through education and by focusing on the real issues of concern on the lake. I applaud his efforts and those of SBONH for stepping up to the plate in the manner that they have to deal with the issues that were and are still present on the lake.

[OCDACTIVE]

As Hazelnut pointed out this came out of no where and wasn't publized to get everyone's opinion. It seems like it was done behind the scenes to keep it quiet.

I can not speak for SBONH. A meeting would have to be held to get everyone's input. I wish this had been brought up earlier to have time to get a consensus.

As mentioned before there are a variety of problems on both sides. From what I can gather so far.

1. it would possibly increase traffic elsewhere (little bear passage) which could lead to another NWZ seperating the lake.
2. it may have a negative impact on property values
3. it may only be necessary for weekends when traffic is up.
4. it actually may increase large wakes for certain property owners because all boats would be slowing and speeding up at one particular area, rather then spread out across the pole if people are abiding by the safe passage law.
5. Depending on the size it may be a hinderance to nearby by camps who pull skiers during the week.
6. It may be safer to have one but we need to discuss and study the issue further.
7. Is the no wake zone necessary or could it be solved by enforcment of current laws?

As you can see it is very difficult to make a decision based on the discussions here. I would be in favor of pushing the vote and having a more public "Publizied" hearing where more of all those effected as well as all boaters can voice their opinions. We have to look at this from all angles, not just from a few property owners that want to decrease wakes.

[DEJ]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

I've been through the area in question a couple of times when it was very congested and it was rather intimidating. I imagine some of the people on the islands have had big trouble with the wakes/erosion/use of their waterfront/concern for a night time strike. One could argue that, similar to Eagle/Governor's Is. NWZ which got another boating groups support, that SBONH could consider embracing this NWZ. It could say a lot, like their support of inspections, that the organization is indeed not just about speed (though an endorsement would have to come with a lot of speed given there's just 1 day left to weigh in).JMO. What do you think OCD?

How about the group that you support SOTD, why not call out Winnfabs to also support this NWZ? Or are they just a one issue group?

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by DEJ

How about the group that you support SOTD, why not call out Winnfabs to also support this NWZ? Or are they just a one issue group?

Wow...interesting take on the subject. I would have to agree though about the one issue aspect of Winnfabs...their one issue was that a few boats were ruining it for everyone else, people were not enjoying the lake because of a selfish minorities' need for speed, to live free or die, and to have fun at every one else's expense. Many people agreed and gave their support to Winnfabs and their voices to the state legislature. I'm impressed with the number of people who had expressed their feeling that they would not return to the lake because it was out of control. Many businesses agreed, especially some of the major hospitality providers on the lake. So yes...a one issue group but in fact now that things have changed, a no issue group. Sorry to bring this to your attention but you are the one who brought up the subject, straying off the intended subject of this thread. And as pointed out above...why be so nasty?

[DEJ]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Wow...interesting take on the subject. I would have to agree though about the one issue aspect of Winnfabs...their one issue was that a few boats were ruining it for everyone else, people were not enjoying the lake because of a selfish minorities' need for speed, to live free or die, and to have fun at every one else's expense. Many people agreed and gave their support to Winnfabs and their voices to the state legislature. I'm impressed with the number of people who had expressed their feeling that they would not return to the lake because it was out of control. Many businesses agreed, especially some of the major hospitality providers on the lake. So yes...a one issue group but in fact now that things have changed, a no issue group. Sorry to bring this to your attention but you are the one who brought up the subject, straying off the intended subject of this thread. And as pointed out above...why be so nasty?

Let me see, someone can suggest SBONH might be a one issue group, I suggest winnfabs might be a one issue group, then we get the TB response which has nothing to do with this discussion other than try to stir the pot. Now that we have that little distraction out of the way, back on topic.

I sent in my comments on this matter and hope many of you here did so also. It will be interesting to see what the outcome is.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Wow...interesting take on the subject. I would have to agree though about the one issue aspect of Winnfabs...their one issue was that a few boats were ruining it for everyone else, people were not enjoying the lake because of a selfish minorities' need for speed, to live free or die, and to have fun at every one else's expense. Many people agreed and gave their support to Winnfabs and their voices to the state legislature. I'm impressed with the number of people who had expressed their feeling that they would not return to the lake because it was out of control. Many businesses agreed, especially some of the major hospitality providers on the lake. So yes...a one issue group but in fact now that things have changed, a no issue group. Sorry to bring this to your attention but you are the one who brought up the subject, straying off the intended subject of this thread. And as pointed out above...why be so nasty?

TB... Lets not go down this path... I agree with you that the winnfabs are a "one issue" group, But lets not discuss the neauances of this. Lets just agree to disagree there and stay on the topic of the NWZ.

As for SBONH being a one issue group.. That of which we shall not discuss is put to bed so lets leave it there. Sbonh is still out trying to promote safety. We are doing this through safety rallys, publications, encouraging vessel inspections and promoting boating education courses. There are many many other issues on the lake that we have begun to work on. This NWZ needs further study before we can endorse this, one way or the other. Yet it appears we won't have time, due to the how it was done without publicity.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Wow...interesting take on the subject. I would have to agree though about the one issue aspect of Winnfabs...their one issue was that a few boats were ruining it for everyone else, people were not enjoying the lake because of a selfish minorities' need for speed, to live free or die, and to have fun at every one else's expense. Many people agreed and gave their support to Winnfabs and their voices to the state legislature. I'm impressed with the number of people who had expressed their feeling that they would not return to the lake because it was out of control. Many businesses agreed, especially some of the major hospitality providers on the lake. So yes...a one issue group but in fact now that things have changed, a no issue group. Sorry to bring this to your attention but you are the one who brought up the subject, straying off the intended subject of this thread. And as pointed out above...why be so nasty?

Does anyone have a good remedy for nausea?

[upthesaukee]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Does anyone have a good remedy for nausea?

Easy remedy for this type of nausea: the ignore button.

[VitaBene]

I am also surprised that this seems to have come out of left field and that no one really has any time to do anything about it.

How do these types of things get announced. I know if my neighbor wanted to change zoning or something similar the town would post it but also inform the abutters directly. Is this the case here?

Hazelnut, I know you practically look at where the Barber's Pole used to be from your dock, did the State contact you? Just curious.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

I am also surprised that this seems to have come out of left field and that no one really has any time to do anything about it.

How do these types of things get announced. I know if my neighbor wanted to change zoning or something similar the town would post it but also inform the abutters directly. Is this the case here?

Hazelnut, I know you practically look at where the Barber's Pole used to be from your dock, did the State contact you? Just curious.

All it takes is 25 people in the town (Tuftonboro in this case) to petition and voila, a hearing is held. Public notice was by newspaper. Since it's a state issue it would seem they don't bother to notify "abutters" like a town would for a variance petition.

Sometimes I wonder if we couldn't set up milk bottles* down the center of the narrower "channels" to try to keep people going opposite directions on their right side(s). Smoothly flowing traffic would cut down on the confusion, anxiety and wakes. No need for a NWZ then.



*or perhaps rock bass with lasers on their foreheads !! We could post little signs saying "Stay right ... or else", "Enforced by rock bass".

[MAXUM]

So obviously the hearing has been held, at what point is a decision made and anyone have any idea when it'll be made public?

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

So obviously the hearing has been held, at what point is a decision made and anyone have any idea when it'll be made public?

When you see the no wake bouys going in on Sat.

Just Kidding... I haven't seen anything in the papers. Hopefully they let us know of their decision or if there will be a followup hearing.

[sunset on the dock]

O.K....let's try again. My post from yesterday truly was commending OCD on the safety inspections and was meant to express that it was good for the organization (SBONH) as a whole. Not trying to flame anyone here and OCD responded with none of the below the belt hits that came from others subsequently...let's keep this discussion on a civil course.
That being said, having visited with friends on the island, one of several of their concerns has been night time boat traffic. According to what we've read here we have a channel of 390' between buoy and island. So at night you can legally have 2 boats approaching each other at 30 MPH. It seems like a no brainer that this is an appropriate place for a NWZ. Last night's accident, occuring in a much larger space, makes this seem even clearer.
This is why I think that it is too bad that the officers of SBONH can't meet/call emergently to support such a simple boating solution to a significant problem. What's the harm? It's an obvious choice to counter the one issue palaver that is being thrown at both SBONH and Winnfabs. SOTD

[DEJ]

SOTD, how about this idea, SBONH and Winnfabs meet/call emergently to support such a simple boating solution to a significant problem.

BTW it is very clear SBONH is not the one issue palaver you suggested.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Why is it that, since a nighttime accident occured last night between two boats traveling at a speed below the current speed limit, the immediate reaction is to slap a new rule/law into effect? This area at Barber's Pole is wide enough to accomodate two boats (day or night), so let it be. If two boats are going to collide they can collide anywhere on the lake. Placing one small area as a no-wake zone is not going to solve any problems. When are people going to stop trying to legislate and make rules to "keep us safe"?

[Finder]

I really don't understand. Just why do you people have such a big problem with slowing down for a little while?

[DEJ]

Originally Posted by Finder

I really don't understand. Just why do you people have such a big problem with slowing down for a little while?

Who is going fast?

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Originally Posted by Finder

I really don't understand. Just why do you people have such a big problem with slowing down for a little while?

As has been previously stated, there is more to this issue than just a simple solution as "slowing down a little". There are additional factors both plus and minus that need to be be considered.

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by Finder

I really don't understand. Just why do you people have such a big problem with slowing down for a little while?

Exactly. All this talk about how the lake will be "divided" if we were to have two new NWZ's is ridiculous. The lake won't be divided at all. And BTW, I have to slow down when coming through Center Harbor from Moultonboro by car...it's no big crisis. And on the lake it's a pleasure to be cruising along slowly, seeing houses, wildlife, and actually having a conversation. Some boaters seem to have a mind set that there are only 2 speeds...stop and full throttle. Very sad.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Exactly. All this talk about how the lake will be "divided" if we were to have two new NWZ's is ridiculous. The lake won't be divided at all. And BTW, I have to slow down when coming through Center Harbor from Moultonboro by car...it's no big crisis. And on the lake it's a pleasure to be cruising along slowly, seeing houses, wildlife, and actually having a conversation. Some boaters seem to have a mind set that there are only 2 speeds...stop and full throttle. Very sad.

I'm very rarely at full throttle, our boat just isn't that type. But I do find that coming off plane and getting back on for no good reason annoying*. As MB said a NWZ is a 24/7 solution to what may only be a few hours a week problem ... and may incur other problems (increased wake damage). In this particular case the question is whether any benefit outweighs those problems. FWIW I find cruising the lake at my 30 - 35 mph quite pleasurable.

*I also prefer the EZ Pass to having to slow, stop and pay the toll. To each his own I guess.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

I'm very rarely at full throttle, our boat just isn't that type. But I do find that coming off plane and getting back on for no good reason annoying.

Talk to any lakefront owner that lives on the end of no wake zones. Boats coming off and returning to plane causes far more shore erosion. And they learned the hard way. They wish the NWZ starts or end at another point other than in front of their property.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Exactly. All this talk about how the lake will be "divided" if we were to have two new NWZ's is ridiculous. The lake won't be divided at all. And BTW, I have to slow down when coming through Center Harbor from Moultonboro by car...it's no big crisis. And on the lake it's a pleasure to be cruising along slowly, seeing houses, wildlife, and actually having a conversation. Some boaters seem to have a mind set that there are only 2 speeds...stop and full throttle. Very sad.

Going slow may be a pleasure for you, but maybe it's not for everyone. You know what...if I want to go slow I'll go out in my rowboat or sailboat. However, if I want to go faster than slow, I'll go out in my powerboat. Boating is NOT a crime, even though you and your ilk would like to make it a crime. Going "slow" is not the standard, neither is going "fast". This is about principal, nothing more. You people are trying to lump all powerboaters together as criminals and cowboys. I take my responsibility quite seriously and am always conscious of my surroundings - both during the day and at night. Why do you think you are always right with your "slow down" attitude?

POWERBOATING IS NOT A CRIME!

[hazelnut]

I'm going to pull rank on everyone in the thread except JTA,

We sit right across from the Barbers Pole so we have front row seats to this area every time we are at the house. I can only say that the "problem" only exists from about 12:00pm on Saturday until 12:00pm Sunday. We are talking about a 24 hour period on weekends during the summer months. That's it. For the most part boats do a good job maintaining adequate distance as there is plenty of room to pass safely. Occasionally people choose to tube and ski in the area, IMHO not the best spot but who am I to say? When this happens many if not all the boats come down to PLOWING speed as I call it. The the requisite Cruiser comes by and throws up a huge wake. Couple all of this with the back and forth of both Sandy Island Shuttle boats and you have chaos. A good solution would be to remove the Red Buoy in the middle of the channel and dredge the tiny little area that it marks. It really is a small hazard and if you go inside the hazard between it and Tuftonboro Neck you can navigate safely. That would open up significant more space in that the narrowest of the area along the stretch.

During the week and off peak hours it would be absurd to have to putter along what could amount to substantial stretch of water. I'm not sold either way. As I said before it would alleviate my stress level for 24 hours a week as Boat Wakes smash my shoreline and whip my 6,000lb vessel around like a ragdoll. My 13 Whaler is inevitably damaged every year sitting at the dock as a line snaps or comes undone, etc. But this is all for roughly 8 periods of 24 hours. The other times there is no issue. So I could be selfish and say yes pass this law and screw all of you that have to come through the area. OR I could look at the pro's and con's and get opinions from other users of the area.

I can tell you that the list is pretty even on both sides now.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

That being said, having visited with friends on the island, one of several of their concerns has been night time boat traffic. According to what we've read here we have a channel of 390' between buoy and island. So at night you can legally have 2 boats approaching each other at 30 MPH. It seems like a no brainer that this is an appropriate place for a NWZ. Last night's accident, occuring in a much larger space, makes this seem even clearer.
This is why I think that it is too bad that the officers of SBONH can't meet/call emergently to support such a simple boating solution to a significant problem. What's the harm? It's an obvious choice to counter the one issue palaver that is being thrown at both SBONH and Winnfabs. SOTD

SOTD,

Believe me this is an issue that SBONH is looking at and trying to get information on. I will not speak for SBONH as a whole at the moment as we have not all spent the time adequately discussing the issue as a group, but here is my personal take.

Personally I don't have a problem either way with NWZ. What I do question is how big they want to make it. Further I believe that if they make the area at the Barbers pole a NWZ, that the next issue becomes what to do at the Long Island Little bear Narrows (which is as narrow if not narrower then the barbers pole). Doing one and not the other is just going to shift the problem to a new location. And that certainly is not what we want to see.

Unfortunately the notification about this issue has been poor, and a surprise to many of us. Unfortunately I don't think this is a easy as a support or don't support issue. As I mention above putting this proposed NWZ in place is only going to move the problem to another location.

Now if both NWZ are put into place the lake is basically divided. And that saddens me...

In short the correct path here is not easily defined. As a group I do believe that SBONH will look at this issue, however it is not something we are immediately able to respond too, as there are way to many variable to take into account.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

This is why I think that it is too bad that the officers of SBONH can't meet/call emergently to support such a simple boating solution to a significant problem. What's the harm? It's an obvious choice to counter the one issue palaver that is being thrown at both SBONH and Winnfabs. SOTD

What is the significant problem that the new NWZ would solve?

[Rattlesnake Guy]

I am not certain of the markers and traffic patterns in this region but here is a scale photograph showing 300' wide boat paths.

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

I am not certain of the markers and traffic patterns in this region but here is a scale photograph showing 300' wide boat paths.

Except you have the boats going on the wrong side of the buoy!