*New Proposed No Wake Zone*

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

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.

Instead of dredging, if there's room to navigate east of the re-topped spar and the shoal, why not just add a black-topped spar on the other side of the shoal?

[Turtle Boy]

Just took a nice boat ride with the kids. There seems to about twice the distance between buoy(s) and land at the Little Bear passage than the Barber Pole one. All this talk about how a NWZ in one area necessesitates another elsewhere seems like nonsense, not that 2 NWZ's would really "lock up the lake". And as said above by Finder, what's the big deal in slowing down for a short while?

[Rattlesnake Guy]

DaveR is right. A black Marker would solve the problem.

After Turtle Boys observation above I took a ride over this morning and updated my drawing. Seems like it is not the tightest spot on the lake to me. Two boats can pass easily even following the 150 foot rules.

[Turtle Boy]

I have to say I'm glad to see this debate in progress...less time and energy available to plot overthrowing something I really do care about (the law that shall not be discussed).

[OCDACTIVE]

Seriously TB, give it a rest and stop trying to stir the pot. We have all left it alone. Why aren't you?

[robmac]

TB,just go back in your shell and everything will be alright. IMHO

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

"...I took a ride over this morning and updated my drawing..."

You passed by my sailboat this morning...'hope my return-wave was seen.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

You passed by my sailboat this morning...'hope my return-wave was seen.

APS, I thought it was you but was not sure. Glad I was not close enough to trigger the solar powered laser beam.

[jrc]

There is no way the state will dedge the lake for traffic improvement.

I still can't figure out how people who drive cars every day, suddenly lose the normal "stay to the right" sense when on their boat.

I see this so many times at narrow spots. Just stay as far right as you can, 150's from shore or hug the markers, the other guys should as well and no problem. Every week I experience this beween Eagle and Pitchwood, at the south end of Bear Island, and between Pig and Lockes.

I really thought education would help but it doesn't seem to be working yet. I think the classes focus too much on technical jargon and not enough on practical operation.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by jrc

I really thought education would help but it doesn't seem to be working yet. I think the classes focus too much on technical jargon and not enough on practical operation.

Might as well say no practical operation. But that's better accomplished On The Water. The course is good background information, and does contain some things that people should know. A good summary of important items would be helpful.

People tend to wander in boats, which is natural given the open, no defined roadway feel of the open water. Additional training should show that this should become more right side of the road as the waterway narrows. I think many people try to take the shortest distance route, which leads them to a left side of the road route.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by jrc

"...There is no way the state will dedge the lake for traffic improvement..."

The expense of moving a few rocks around underwater—once—is far less costly than endless enforcement of any NWZ.

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

APS, I thought it was you but was not sure. Glad I was not close enough to trigger the solar powered laser beam.

Yesterday's abnormally strong SW wind had me becalmed in my own shoreline's "wind-shadow".

In trying to get back home, I used my PED ("powerboat excluder device") on several tubers dependent—for some reason—on the calm waters there. After a few minutes, all the tubers left for the Tuftonboro shoreline!

I believe I can hire-out my specialized "sailboat services" along some selected shorelines...

...How's $40 an hour sound?

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

The expense of moving a few rocks around underwater—once—is far less costly than endless enforcement of any NWZ.

Probably why they don't do it too much. Besides, they get too many calls to break up rafts.

[Lucky1]

I hate to sound silly but what is a Winni Fab????

[Just Sold]

Yesterday I was talking with my friend who is vacationing (arrived on Sat) very near the Barber Pole and they said the weekend boating traffic with its subsequent waves was a major issue to them. Their 21' boat was OK tied up in a crib style dock but the 2 jet ski's were tied outside the crib and taking a beating everytime the waves came in. From their observation they felt something needs to be done about the excessive amount of waves created in that area by boats.
Not sure I can completely agree with them that a "No-Wake Zone" is the answer as it only happens on the weekends.

[jrc]

I wonder if there will be some good rafting spots in there once the wakes are gone.

I saw some boats anchored on the Weirs side of the Governors Island bridge on Sunday in the No Wake Zone. It got me thinking that we should move, as we were anchored on the Saunder's bay side. If we move to the NWZ then it would be smoother. So a new NWZ should open up some nice smooth spots around the Barber Pole.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by jrc

I saw some boats anchored on the Weirs side of the Governors Island bridge on Sunday in the No Wake Zone. It got me thinking that we should move, as we were anchored on the Saunder's bay side.

Sunday, about 11 AM. There was a MP RIB nestled in with all the rafters on the Saunders side. He was using the lazer on boats cruising into the bridge from Saunders Bay.

I can see his point as the boats are in a very narrow window. But doesn't a boat bow reflect the light sideways? Any how it is kind of a no brainer to be speeding on this stretch at his hour. Unless you are Cap'n Bonehead.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Sunday, about 11 AM. There was a MP RIB nestled in with all the rafters on the Saunders side. He was using the lazer on boats cruising into the bridge from Saunders Bay.

I can see his point as the boats are in a very narrow window. But doesn't a boat bow reflect the light sideways? Any how it is kind of a no brainer to be speeding on this stretch at his hour. Unless you are Cap'n Bonehead.

I saw him there and couldn't figure out what he was doing. When he got there there wasn't any rafts, or many boats at all, so he wasn't enforcing the NRZ. If he looked under the bridge he could enforce the NWZ on the Weirs side. Looking towards Saunders, he could enforce 150' rule regarding the bridge or some boats, but by then you would see him.

I guess you saw a lazer to catch boats exceeding 45 MPH as they approach the bridge and a bunch of anchored boats. Anyone doing that would be bonehead.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Lucky1

I hate to sound silly but what is a Winni Fab????

Winnfabs was a group dedicated to getting a speed limit on the lake. This is their website: http://winnfabs.com/ As you can see, it has not been updated in awhile.

As far as I know, they are no longer active now that the lake "feels safe" and there are no longer any collisions, drownings or sinkings.

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Winnfabs was a group dedicated to getting a speed limit on the lake. This is their website: http://winnfabs.com/ As you can see, it has not been updated in awhile.

As far as I know, they are no longer active now that the lake "feels safe" and there are no longer any collisions, drownings or sinkings.

And what about SBONH? Check out their website at http://www.sbonh.org

Legislative Update

CALL TO ACTION!!


The House and Transportation Committee will be hearing SB464 on WEDNESDAY APRIL 7th at 9:30 AM in the LEGISLATIVE OFFICE BUILDING in Concord. It is imperative that we have a tremendous turnout to show we are the majority of boaters who are not in favor of permanent speed limits without the promised two year study.

...............................

Oh yeah. They're the majority. 10 to 1 emails in favor of a SL. Four times as many signatures as SBONH. Bipartisan overwhealming majority votes in the House and Senate pro SL. Enough said.

[DEJ]

TB, I believe the question Lucky1 asked was about winn fabs, nothing was asked about Safe Boaters of New Hampshire. Why the anger towards them? If you could only channel your anger towards the real boating issues on the lake like Safe Boaters is doing it would be a much safer place.

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

And what about SBONH? Check out their website at http://www.sbonh.org

Legislative Update

CALL TO ACTION!!


The House and Transportation Committee will be hearing SB464 on WEDNESDAY APRIL 7th at 9:30 AM in the LEGISLATIVE OFFICE BUILDING in Concord. It is imperative that we have a tremendous turnout to show we are the majority of boaters who are not in favor of permanent speed limits without the promised two year study.

...............................

Oh yeah. They're the majority. 10 to 1 emails in favor of a SL. Four times as many signatures as SBONH. Bipartisan overwhealming majority votes in the House and Senate pro SL. Enough said.

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by DEJ

TB, I believe the question Lucky1 asked was about winn fabs, nothing was asked about Safe Boaters of New Hampshire. Why the anger towards them? If you could only channel your anger towards the real boating issues on the lake like Safe Boaters is doing it would be a much safer place.

My angst was directed at DaveR's rather arrogant and sarcastic statement:
"As far as I know, they are no longer active now that the lake "feels safe" and there are no longer any collisions, drownings or sinkings"

Though I do realize he was just trying to stir the pot.

[VitaBene]

[QUOTE=Turtle Boy;135104]And what about SBONH? Check out their website at http://www.sbonh.org /QUOTE]

TB, Thanks for posting the link!

[Gavia immer]

[QUOTE=VitaBene;135126]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

And what about SBONH? Check out their website at http://www.sbonh.org /QUOTE]

TB, Thanks for posting the link!

Are ALL of the community-organizers in SBONH, carpetbaggers?
http://www.sbonh.org/update.php

[OCDACTIVE]

[QUOTE=Gavia immer;135138]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

Are ALL of the community-organizers in SBONH, carpetbaggers?
http://www.sbonh.org/update.php

I find it amusing that the only way you feel you can smear the orgainzation is to find the only tab that has not been updated on the entire site.

You seem to have conveniently left out the vessel inspection schedule, the rally pictures from this summer, the highly successful relationship between the power squadron and SBONH.

As always "misdirection" is used by the group in question. Notice how SBONH was brought into the conversation where the question was directed at a different group all together.

SBONH continues to work with the power squadron, clubs, organization, the legislation, marine patrol and candidates for the legislature to promote safety and effective legislation.

We have had more activities this summer then one can count. What has the other group done since their one issue agenda has passed??? Its time you post facts before trying to smear a well run and well intentioned organization.

I have changed the Legislative page to make you feel better. I was simply waiting for the new session as well as performing multiple changes at once rather then piece-mail.

Also I don't see why SBONH was even brought up in this discussion. The question was directed soley at a different group. Why feel the need to include an organization that is currently working to improve safety? Our membership has such a variety of boats, Pontoon boats, fishing boats, bow riders, Sea Doos etc... And at last count I believe we only have 3 captains that own boats that you would classify as GFBL boats, so please again take your misdirection elsewhere.

[Just Sold]

This thread has gone off topic.

It is about a proposed no-wake zone near the Barbers Pole and not about any organizations or associations and what they have or have not done or etc. So please take this off topic discussion elswhere.

OK - I will get off my soap box now.

[Irrigation Guy]

No reports from the hearing?

[jrc]

[QUOTE=Gavia immer;135138]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

Are ALL of the community-organizers in SBONH, carpetbaggers?
http://www.sbonh.org/update.php

Looks like they all have NH in their address. The lake belongs to all the citizens of NH.

Besides I thought when someone wanted to disparage, belittle or denigrate someone else based solely on geography, the term flatlander was used.

[VitaBene]

[QUOTE=Gavia immer;135138]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

Are ALL of the community-organizers in SBONH, carpetbaggers?
http://www.sbonh.org/update.php

Do you mean are we all non-natives of the lakes region or the true definition (Yankees who moved south after the Civil war)?

I am not native to NH but own 2 houses in Moultonborough, one my primary residence, the other being our vacation house. My wife and I made the decision to raise our family in the Lakes Region. My 2 kids go to Moultonborough Academy. I formed a business in Moultonborough. I volunteer in Moultonborough.

There are numerous members of SBONH who are natives, but frankly I have no idea what difference it makes where someone is from or where they live as long as they want to make our lake safer!

So Gavia, what is your background? Like I said it does not matter, so if you want to join us...

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

And what about SBONH? Check out their website at http://www.sbonh.org

For once, I agree w TB. People interested in safety without fluff should really check out their website.

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Winnfabs was a group dedicated to getting a speed limit on the lake. This is their website: http://winnfabs.com/ As you can see, it has not been updated in awhile.

As far as I know, they are no longer active now that the lake "feels safe" and there are no longer any collisions, drownings or sinkings.

SO are the GFBL's saying it's OK to make disparaging remarks about the WinnFabs site but when someone answers back that the SBONH site needs updating as well then it's not? A bit of a double standard here.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

SO are the GFBL's saying it's OK to make disparaging remarks about the WinnFabs site but when someone answers back that the SBONH site needs updating as well then it's not? A bit of a double standard here.

Maybe just cut to the chase... What is Winnfabs doing these days? What have they done THIS SEASON to increase the overall safety, education, and awareness on the lake? It's seems that they've been rather dormant.

If you're a fan or a member of Winnfabs, then please post some pertinent info regarding the organization. If the best you can do is more misdirection and non-specific ranting, you might as well save the keystrokes because you're not fooling anyone.

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

Maybe just cut to the chase... What is Winnfabs doing these days? What have they done THIS SEASON to increase the overall safety, education, and awareness on the lake? It's seems that they've been rather dormant.

If you're a fan or a member of Winnfabs, then please post some pertinent info regarding the organization. If the best you can do is more misdirection and non-specific ranting, you might as well save the keystrokes because you're not fooling anyone.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.....

[colt17]

we have been looking at camps on Cow and this will be a huge factor if we buy or look at other islands. would love to hear the out come??

[winni83]

Perhaps WinnFabs did not accurately state its corporate purpose when it filed Articles of Agreement with the NH Secretary of State. The first stated purpose is "To educate the public on boating safety".

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by winni83

Perhaps WinnFabs did not accurately state its corporate purpose when it filed Articles of Agreement with the NH Secretary of State. The first stated purpose is "To educate the public on boating safety".

Check out their web site under..."why a speed limit?"

[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.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

DaveR is right. A black Marker would solve the problem.

After Turtle Boys observation above I took a ride over this morning and updated my drawing. Seems like it is not the tightest spot on the lake to me. Two boats can pass easily even following the 150 foot rules.

Great depiction of the pole.. I think most would agree with you that 2 boats have no problem passing. The issues come when you have multiple boats at multiple speeds as well as someone thinking that is the best place to teach their kid how to ski their first time on a busy Sat. afternoon.... (obviously I am exaggerating a bit) But when I have seen issues occur there it rarely only involves two boats. Again I haven't made a decision as of yet whether the answer is a NWZ however.

[ishoot308]

Rather than make it a no wake zone, how about a no skiing / tubing zone. I would think that would help somewhat...

Just a thought;

Dan

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

Rather than make it a no wake zone, how about a no skiing / tubing zone. I would think that would help somewhat...

Just a thought;

Dan

Brilliant idea. The only times it's been bad going through there were when I've encountered people tubing. With all the open space on the lake, why anyone would choose there to do that sort of thing is beyond me. Another place that baffles me in the same way is the area south of Sandy Point.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

What is the problem with Hazelnut's suggestion? Seems simple enough to me.

Just eliminate the little marker, clear the little area it marks.

This is just a guess, but I would think that with all the bureaucratic red tape involved with doing such a project, it probably would take years to get done.

Dan

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

Great depiction of the pole.. I think most would agree with you that 2 boats have no problem passing. The issues come when you have multiple boats at multiple speeds as well as someone thinking that is the best place to teach their kid how to ski their first time on a busy Sat. afternoon.... (obviously I am exaggerating a bit) But when I have seen issues occur there it rarely only involves two boats. Again I haven't made a decision as of yet whether the answer is a NWZ however.

Sadly Scott you are not exaggerating as this is what does occur from time to time.