How has the lake changed????

[OCDACTIVE]

Well we are into another year of the speed limit. Much different then last. Beautiful Hot and Sunny Weather. No one can argue that the weather has been a deterent. The economy has not rebounded as much as hoped but I think we have turned a corner and are hopefully on the way to full recovery slowly but surely......

However with Labor Day approaching I can honestly say the lake has not become any safer. The accident rate is up, the registration rate is level (that of the early 90's) but yet we have a SL that was supposed to change all of that.

Now I don't want to see a debate get unfriendly but we have all been on the lake for many many hours and I really want to hear specifics as to if you have seen a difference.

Personally I still see the same crazy captains that either have no education or are purposely thumbing their noses at the 150 ft law, NWZ's and yes I have seen plenty of boats / PWC's exceeding the 45 mph law.

However I can say that in all instances where the SL was broken (again my personal observations) there was not a safety issue involved. However the multiple times I have been cut off by unaware captains and those going WAY too close to me caused me great concern.

So in the spirit of our webmasters request, please lets keep the conversation civil. I am sure we are able to do this, that is until the normal grenade throwers show up but lets see what rational information can be obtained before that.

Thanks

PS: I am only limited to 5 posts per day so I apologize if I don't answer your comments or questions regarding this post. However, now that we have 2 years behind us, this is the conversation that should have been taking place before the legislature jumped the gun. We now have seen 2 years of having the SL's in force. Of course we will be getting peoples beliefs at first but the facts and data from the MP are to follow soon. In the mean time all we have is personal observations AND we all know of the multiple accidents that have occured these past two years. What I am driving at is with the information that we now have from a compartive stand point have you seen a difference? Of course you will have the hardliners that say everything is perfect, but if that were the case why are many now trying to futher restrict us with more NWZ's, stricter noise restrictions, and may I dare say size / HP? I thought SL were supposed to make everything better????

[brk-lnt]

Seriously, why even open this discussion? All you are doing is inviting people to continue to provide more personal opinion on this, and if the last 1000 posts on this topic are any indiction, everyone is going to believe what they want to believe and not be swayed one way or the other.

There appear to be multiple agendas at play on this issue, and the posts, opinions, and "facts" presented all seem far from neutral.

Killing more electrons on this topic will ONLY lead to hostility. If you don't like or agree with any given law or regulation the place to do something about it is NOT on this forum, it's in real life.

I'd prefer to see someone post some actual statistics and trends, and even at that you'd need 4 or 5 years of the current state to even begin to show a trend that you could extrapolate from.

[DEJ]

I agree brk-int. With all due respect OCD this is not a good idea, it will only lead to the same old crap. Let the data and statistics speak for themselves, opinions about this have not changed on either side. Please consider deleting your original post.

[DoTheMath]

I see no issue with his post, as it says in the top of this section of the Winni forum:

"Warning! Avoid this area if you don't like debates and arguments!"

So, with that - respectfully, let the thread continue... (thanks Don)

[DEJ]

And this will accomplish what? We will get the same crowd that will say the lake feels safer this year, and the other crowd that will say nothing has changed. There that should cover it, debate over. :)

[classic22]

And this will accomplish what? We will get the same crowd that will say the lake feels safer this year, and the other crowd that will say nothing has changed. There that should cover it, debate over. :)

DEJ- OCD has always been consistent in his postings and thoughts about the speed limit that there should be more time to study the issue as the original legislation regarding speed limits intended. The fact that it was hastily put forward last summer by the pro speed limit crowd as all problems solved by the speed limit, nothing to look at here, please move along mentality to get the speed limit passed permanently has been a sticking point for many.
So as Ronald Reagan once said: Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago? By the way the answer was rhetorical, as every one already knew the answer! I believe OCD by his posting is asking, are you better off with a speed limit than you were 2 years ago before the speed limit? I think in this case we all know the answer as well!

[VitaBene]

I am going to move beyond the SL dialogue and say that people on the lake have become less friendly and less courteous. I am not saying that every passing boater should wave to one another but when someone does something courteous, it would be nice to have that act acknowledged.

[MAXUM]

Since the question was asked, I'll submit a simple answer.

I don't believe anyone's mind has changed in regards to the SL. Those that decided for or against seem to be even less likely to consider any other point of view. Kinda like any political philosophy, the liberals hate the conservatives and the conservatives hate the liberals. It will never change.

Is there a noticeable difference? IMHO this is a loaded question and no offense throwing a little red meat to the wolves. Perception does NOT equal reality or fact. No offense either to the long string of so called experts and "know it alls".... if you cannot site specific reports or verifiable data sources then what you say cannot be validated and therefore is simply self proclaimed 'fact', or more accurately described as 'opinion'.

To fully understand if the SL has made an impact is to at the end of each year compare accident, summons issued etc... data before and after to get an idea. Same can be said for the boater's safety course, has it made a difference? Let the numbers answer that question.

Now if anyone can get their hands on this kind of data from the NHMP or if they would be so kind as to post it here, well then we have something to discuss. Otherwise it's just another long endless debate over who's perception is more accurate. The answer to that is very simple.... MINE! <edit> (I forgot to say I was just kidding)

Just my 02 cents before the bullets start a flying!

[VtSteve]

I agree brk-int. With all due respect OCD this is not a good idea, it will only lead to the same old crap. Let the data and statistics speak for themselves, opinions about this have not changed on either side. Please consider deleting your original post.

Maybe, maybe not.

But as Don posted on the thread title.

"This separated forum is provided for the discussion and debate about controversial issues that effect the Lakes Region but are discouraged from the other more friendly areas. Debates about speed limits, no-wake zones, noise and general complaints and griping belong here. Threads in other forums that turn into debates, arguments or bickering will be moved here. Warning! Avoid this area if you don't like debates and arguments!"


Had to look didn't you? :laugh:

I hope it stays civil, and hopefully interesting.

[brk-lnt]

My comment was not in regards to whether or not this discussion topic was allowed, but more to the point that every single one of these threads in the past have simply degraded to futility.

There is not enough data to draw a logical conclusion from, and furthermore you are forever trying to argue to disprove a negative. You say there were many accidents this year, and it's easy for someone to say "yeah, and without the speed limit we SURELY would have had more". There is NO way you can counter that kind of statement.

I'd love to see a discussion about something based in facts and reality, not just another rehashed opinion thread.

[VtSteve]

My comment was not in regards to whether or not this discussion topic was allowed, but more to the point that every single one of these threads in the past have simply degraded to futility.

There is not enough data to draw a logical conclusion from, and furthermore you are forever trying to argue to disprove a negative. You say there were many accidents this year, and it's easy for someone to say "yeah, and without the speed limit we SURELY would have had more". There is NO way you can counter that kind of statement.

I'd love to see a discussion about something based in facts and reality, not just another rehashed opinion thread.

Then rephrase it. Yes, there were far more accidents this year than last, and I believe the year before that as well.

Here's a great question, which requires nothing more than facts, that are readily available.

Have any of the accidents this year, or last, involved speeds that would indicate to you that a speed limit was needed on the lake?

The data is available, and you can get it for a decade or more.

Another question. Have any of the accidents this year indicated that a speed limit was needed on the lake? How about last year, or the year before. The facts are available, so I guess no speculation is really required.

No rehash required. Step right up to the plate and hit the pitch.

[onlywinni]

I'd prefer to see someone post some actual statistics and trends, and even at that you'd need 4 or 5 years of the current state to even begin to show a trend that you could extrapolate from.

Please feel free to show me the 4-5 years of statistics and trends that led to the SL being passed. I dont believe there are any. The only evidence offered was "feelings" and emails from what I gather.

There is one study that was completed by the Marine Patrol in 2007 and only 0.9% of boats exceeded 45mph that is 36 out of 3852.(does not appear to be the epidemic some indicated to get this law passed). Also the top speed was only 62mph far cry from the alleged speeds some people claim.

The speed zone sampling produced the following results:

• The total number of boats clocked was 3852. This number includes both motorboats and PWC’s, data collected during the day and at night.
• The average daytime speed for all vessels (powerboats and PWC’s) was 22.72 miles per hour.
• The average speed for all vessels after 8:00 p.m. was 20.42 miles per hour.
• The average weekday speed was 25.91 miles per hour.
• The average weekend speed was 28.62 miles per hour.
• The maximum speed recorded for a vessel was 62 miles per hour. A total of three vessels were clocked going this speed, two on Saturday 7/14/07 and one on Saturday, 8/04/07.
• The maximum speed for a PWC was 49 miles per hour.
• The maximum speed after 8:00 p.m. was 44 miles per hour.
• There were a total of 36 boats clocked going over 45 miles per hour which represents 0.9% of the total.


Here is the report for anyone's reference.

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/ss/marinepatrol/documents/speedsurveyreport.pdf

----------------------

I left this debate a while ago, because I dont believe I can change anyone's mind who is already made up; however someone new to the issue should know the facts. Thanks

[ishoot308]

Please feel free to show me the 4-5 years of statistics and trends that led to the SL being passed. I dont believe there are any. The only evidence offered was "feelings" and emails from what I gather.

There is one study that was completed by the Marine Patrol in 2007 and only 0.9% of boats exceeded 45mph that is 36 out of 3852.(does not appear to be the epidemic some indicated to get this law passed). Also the top speed was only 62mph far cry from the alleged speeds some people claim.

The speed zone sampling produced the following results:

• The total number of boats clocked was 3852. This number includes both motorboats and PWC’s, data collected during the day and at night.
• The average daytime speed for all vessels (powerboats and PWC’s) was 22.72 miles per hour.
• The average speed for all vessels after 8:00 p.m. was 20.42 miles per hour.
• The average weekday speed was 25.91 miles per hour.
• The average weekend speed was 28.62 miles per hour.
• The maximum speed recorded for a vessel was 62 miles per hour. A total of three vessels were clocked going this speed, two on Saturday 7/14/07 and one on Saturday, 8/04/07.
• The maximum speed for a PWC was 49 miles per hour.
• The maximum speed after 8:00 p.m. was 44 miles per hour.
• There were a total of 36 boats clocked going over 45 miles per hour which represents 0.9% of the total.


Here is the report for anyone's reference.

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/ss/marinepatrol/documents/speedsurveyreport.pdf

----------------------

I left this debate a while ago, because I dont believe I can change anyone's mind who is already made up; however someone new to the issue should know the facts. Thanks

What better statistical data is there than this?? Why was this data completely ignored?? This is the largest sampling of data I have seen regarding the issue yet this is the first time I have seen it.

Dan

[VtSteve]

They disputed the data because it didn't meet their agenda, similar to the NWZ at Barber's Pole. They even charged that since the MP did not support the SL, that they purposely tried to contaminate the data.

However, there have been two incidents which led to the SL that had nothing to do with speed. You all know which ones they were. It's a culture thing, and people that rub them the wrong way, Look Out.

Last year, some of the more professional protagonists, TB, El and SOTD, engaged in many "debates" over the weather and the economy. They proclaimed that the speed limit had already worked, which is why the lake was so quiet. So this year, after a multitude of accidents and drownings and capsizing stories, they couldn't detract from their positions. In spite of renewed chaos and a multitude of boneheads, they still proclaimed it was working very well.

However, another argument, the NWZ at BP, made them change their tune. Instead of the SL working there, boats are Tearing and Ripping and Flying all over the place in that area. Despite observations from people that live and boat there, the allegations continue. It's like leaving a book down to get a drink, and coming back only to find out someone's changed the chapter you were reading :rolleye2:

Most of us do not own very fast boats, a few do. Most of us have embraced safety, additional enforcement, adding to the MP funding, and have expressed a desire to enforce the laws. When provided with facts, they get nasty. So be it, that's politics. However, these are boater's issues, and not general elections. There are a multitude of good people on both sides of every argument. But these discussions should not be arguments, but discussions.

[sunset on the dock]

They disputed the data because it didn't meet their agenda, similar to the NWZ at Barber's Pole. They even charged that since the MP did not support the SL, that they purposely tried to contaminate the data.

However, there have been two incidents which led to the SL that had nothing to do with speed. You all know which ones they were. It's a culture thing, and people that rub them the wrong way, Look Out.

Last year, some of the more professional protagonists, TB, El and SOTD, engaged in many "debates" over the weather and the economy. They proclaimed that the speed limit had already worked, which is why the lake was so quiet. So this year, after a multitude of accidents and drownings and capsizing stories, they couldn't detract from their positions. In spite of renewed chaos and a multitude of boneheads, they still proclaimed it was working very well.

However, another argument, the NWZ at BP, made them change their tune. Instead of the SL working there, boats are Tearing and Ripping and Flying all over the place in that area. Despite observations from people that live and boat there, the allegations continue. It's like leaving a book down to get a drink, and coming back only to find out someone's changed the chapter you were reading :rolleye2:



Safety was only 1 facet of the SL law. Now back to my peaceful reading on the dock. BTW last night I slept great...no loud boats tearing by the house at 11 PM at god knows what speed.

[brk-lnt]

Please feel free to show me the 4-5 years of statistics and trends that led to the SL being passed. I dont believe there are any. The only evidence offered was "feelings" and emails from what I gather.


I think you guys may be unaware of which side of this debate my opinions fall on.

For the record, I think the speed limit is a pointless feel-good law.

Anyone who looks at this with a clear head can see that it was passed on opinions, emotions, and pandering instead of facts and statistics. 99% of the threads discussing the speed limits show this. You have one side citing statistics, and the other side citing touchy-feely emotions and non-scientific observations.

I also don't see any indications that the anti-SL crowd is going to place any value in some people *feeling* safer, even if there is no data to support that feeling, nor do I see the pro-SL crowd willing to look at actual data in an unbiased fashion and come to the conclusion that we're not going to ever get safety via legislation in any effective manner.

We can start as many of these threads as the server has space for, and they will all become facts vs. feelings debates, which will never do anything more than fill the server db with more random text.

[BroadHopper]

In my opinion the lake is no longer the friendliest place on earth that I have pictured in my mind when I was growing up on The Broads. In the past, everyone get along no matter what they do or what they float. I miss the camaraderie of the water ski racing and sailboat regatta days. Although there are sailboat regattas today, I find the organizers a snobby bunch. They shun most folks outside their little cocoon.

I no longer get the 'boater's wave' from boaters around the lake. A few still do. There was a time last spring my boat broke down just outside the Weirs Channel. In the old days, just about any boater will stop to see if you need assistance. I was drifting a good hour with hundreds of boats zipping by.

I usually keep my eye out for paddlers when a sudden storm comes up. Many time I offer assistance over the years. This year I tried to lend a hand to two kayakers in trouble off Long Island. They shouted back, 'We don't like your kind! Go away!'. One sailboater off Bear Island even flipped me the birdy!

The neighborhood use to be one huge happy family. Everyone will spend a weekend night on each other's deck or porch. The children will play together and enjoy many watersports. Today the 'high rollers' from out of state moved in, tear down the 1800's style fishing cottages and build McMansions. They tend to act like they own the neighborhood and also the road! They snub their neighbors and keep to themselves.

As far as boating safety. I see very little marine patrol presence this summer. I even overheard a couple of novice boaters at a local bar telling folks that the MP budget was cut and they are to busy catching Speeders to notice other infractions. I have to believe them. I have never seen so much NWZ and 150' infractions this year than my life on the lake. I have even witness three boats traveling at max wake speed through the Weirs Channel! Wasn't there serious accidents this year because of 'minor' infractions?

Shorefront property owners are already complaining about the slower boats creating larger wakes and also that noise become a problem because they hear it longer. SL opponents have told them that this will happen and it was ignored. I also notice a number of the so called 'GFBL' boats traded in for large cruisers or yachts. Compounding the situation.

My new neighbors will call the police if one decided to do the long tradition of skinny dipping ala 'On Golden Pond'. The same neighbors will call the marine patrol if i decided to water-ski at sunrise or sunset. One neighbor even confiscate my 'drop off' ski, claiming if drifted out in front of his property!

I can go on and on. Any new laws is not going to take the lake back. It is people that can take the lake back. Trying to limit public launching, tolls at the Weirs channel, limiting the size of boats and horsepower will just make matters worst. It will actually turn the traditional lake folks into 'Outlaws'.

Let's all be reasonable.

[VtSteve]

SOTD, boats cannot tear by your house at 11 PM at god knows what speed because after dark the speed limit is 25 mph. The speed limit is working, haven't you heard and read about it? :)

Apparently SOTD has several differing "opinions". We have people tearing through the BP area, but he can sleep soundly because of how well the SL is working. In fact, several of the statements supporting the NWZ at BP differed strikingly from recent comments by two primary supporters.

[VtSteve]

I think you guys may be unaware of which side of this debate my opinions fall on.

For the record, I think the speed limit is a pointless feel-good law.

Anyone who looks at this with a clear head can see that it was passed on opinions, emotions, and pandering instead of facts and statistics. 99% of the threads discussing the speed limits show this. You have one side citing statistics, and the other side citing touchy-feely emotions and non-scientific observations.

I also don't see any indications that the anti-SL crowd is going to place any value in some people *feeling* safer, even if there is no data to support that feeling, nor do I see the pro-SL crowd willing to look at actual data in an unbiased fashion and come to the conclusion that we're not going to ever get safety via legislation in any effective manner.

We can start as many of these threads as the server has space for, and they will all become facts vs. feelings debates, which will never do anything more than fill the server db with more random text.

You put that nicely, thanks.

I would agree with you if these were just useless discussions of the political type. Unfortunately, many of these things are going on behind people's backs, with people using lies and baseless accusations to get legislators to sign on. It was known last year that a former(?) political operative and campaign manager type was lobbying heavily for the speed limit bill. The tactics and methods used by that group were both professional. Regardless of anyone's position on a variety of these issues, wouldn't it be reassuring to know that your real opinion is actually being heard?


These very same tactics are now being deployed by the very same folks on a NWZ issue most hadn't heard of. Whether someone supports it or not, the main issue is that a small group of people are lobbying behind people's backs, limiting access to other's opinions. While some may agree with one area and not another, makes no difference in this discussion. Fact is, they will not stop at one NWZ area, but will continue to advances their various causes whether any of you like it or not.

It should be blatantly obvious in these discussions. Some speed limit opponents support a serious discussion of the NWZ, and have not dismissed anyone's concerns at all. Hazelnut has them off guard on this one. He didn't support the speed limit, but made some very eloquent comments as to how this NWZ could benefit him personally. What caught them off guard, is that they didn't expect anyone to factually dispute their reasons, which were skillfully crafted to make everyone fearful of these big, bad, fast boaters. Those in the impacted area know that those issues aren't even issues there.

If you read the support letters for the NWZ, it really reads like a Pro speed limit discussion. This, from the very same people that say the speed limit is working so well, they can now relax :rolleye2:

Transparency is not one of their defining characteristics. :laugh:

[Kracken]

Nice post Broadhopper,

You are right, the lake has changed and the biggest part is the attitude. One could make a valid argument one of the greatest assets of Lake Winnipesaukee in years gone by was the friendliness of the people that called that lake home (even if it was for only a few weeks per year).

If you don’t believe it, take a step back and remove the rose colored glasses. Those cabins of yesteryear where we spent our summers, where they really that nice or were they just a backdrop? Was the water cleaner back then? I remember when the Alton Bay Pavilion was a roller skating rink. After a big Saturday night when the rink was at capacity, there would be toilet paper floating in the bay all day Sunday. What made the lake great was the people, the attitude and the feeling you were part of something so much grander than yourself. That is something I think has been lost over the years.

I can understand why people want to turn the clock back, although something’s are better left in the past. I just think people are focusing on the wrong things. It is not the homes, cabins, and boats that need a change. It’s the attitude. If you really want to make a change, start with yourself, if you see somebody in trouble, STOP and lend a hand. If you don’t know your neighbors on the lake, introduce yourself. If you pass another boat wave and smile. Just treat others the way you want to be treated and you will see a change.

[Bear Islander]

The problem here is that most people on this forum don't know why we have a SL. They heard somewhere, or read somewhere or just made it up in their minds that the SL is about safety. It isn't, and new was. Preventing accidents is NOT the reason we have a SL. At best it is one of the secondary or supporting reasons.

That is why all these arguments about test areas, data, trial periods and how many accidents there were in a given year are so far off target. As Bill Murry said in Meatballs "IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER!"

The Anti-SL crowd, at this site and elsewhere, have been arguing the safety issue from day one. And, for the most part, at the exclusion of other more pertinent arguments. And that, in my opinion, is why they lost.

In Star Wars 5 Luke Skywalker says "I can't believe it!" Yoda responds "That is why you fail".

You want to talk about why we have a speed limit? Then drop the safety stuff.

[OCDACTIVE]

The problem here is that most people on this forum don't know why we have a SL. They heard somewhere, or read somewhere or just made it up in their minds that the SL is about safety. It isn't, and new was. Preventing accidents is NOT the reason we have a SL. At best it is one of the secondary or supporting reasons.

That is why all these arguments about test areas, data, trial periods and how many accidents there were in a given year are so far off target. As Bill Murry said in Meatballs "IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER!"

The Anti-SL crowd, at this site and elsewhere, have been arguing the safety issue from day one. And, for the most part, at the exclusion of other more pertinent arguments. And that, in my opinion, is why they lost.

In Star Wars 5 Luke Skywalker says "I can't believe it!" Yoda responds "That is why you fail".

You want to talk about why we have a speed limit? Then drop the safety stuff.

Hey BI.. You and I go round and round on this but I would love to hear it... what do you think the reasons are? cut and dry?

When I got involved in this I read every post, article, thread, news media interview etc. and everyone of them cried being afraid and safety issues as the top priority. I sat in the hearings and this was again the arguement over and over again.

We would then hear a bit of noise issues etc but never was that the primary reasonings the SL crowd asked for the limits.

I personally agree with you. I believe that the "majority" of those who started this crusade are simply trying to ban / limit performance boats from the lake. It is very unfortunate and I have been told by many different sources that their true intentions had nothing to do with speed or safety what so ever (this is why they were unwilling to negotiate in any way).. But without trying to rehash a tragic accident or sounding unsympathetic in anyway, their true intentions was to rid the lake of performance boats due to their friend dying in a night time accident, that involved a performance boat but speed was not a factor at all. Even with today's limits it woudn't have been considered a speed issue. We all know about this accident and it isn't a coincidence that the person who passed away due to this tragic accident lived in the same area as the people who started asking for a speed limit in the first place.

I know it is a big elephant in the room, and I don't want to sound unsympathetic to the family on either side. It unfortunately is the truth but no one openly admits it.

[classic22]

The problem here is that most people on this forum don't know why we have a SL. They heard somewhere, or read somewhere or just made it up in their minds that the SL is about safety. It isn't, and new was. Preventing accidents is NOT the reason we have a SL. At best it is one of the secondary or supporting reasons.

That is why all these arguments about test areas, data, trial periods and how many accidents there were in a given year are so far off target. As Bill Murry said in Meatballs "IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER!"

The Anti-SL crowd, at this site and elsewhere, have been arguing the safety issue from day one. And, for the most part, at the exclusion of other more pertinent arguments. And that, in my opinion, is why they lost.

In Star Wars 5 Luke Skywalker says "I can't believe it!" Yoda responds "That is why you fail".

You want to talk about why we have a speed limit? Then drop the safety stuff.

BI- You are correct in stating the obvious...it never was about safety...this was just a smoke screen put up by the pro-speed limit crowd. So please enlighten the forum what it really was about! Please dont keep us in suspense any longer.

[All Summer Long]

In my opinion the lake is no longer the friendliest place on earth that I have pictured in my mind when I was growing up on The Broads.


I am a new boater and basically new to Lake Winni. I have no experience with how it used to be but I have to say I am very pleased with how many friendly and helpful people I have come across. We have been helped by so many people when we have tried to anchor or dock. Our new neighbors at the marina have been full of helpful tips and have welcomed us in to the "family". Sometimes when you look for the bad, you see the bad. There will always be the bad seeds but I like to think they don't out number the good. Hope you start running in to more of the good!

[Shreddy]

I think the SL was simply an eye opener. Most people know that the majority of boats don't/can't exceed say 60mph. The ones that can, don't do it often. No, I'm not for the SL per say, but it did set the bar similar to most speed limits off the water. The SL may be 45mph on the water, but MP realize that 50-55mph is acceptable/unenforecable. Same way going 75 on I93 most likely won't get you pulled over by a Statie.

It makes people think twice when operating a boat. I honestly don't drive any different, partly because my boat will barely hit 45mph if I'm lucky. No worries for me. My jet ski on the other hand is different.

What I'm stating is simply my take on the subject and what I think they accomplished with the law. I'd be curious to see how many, if any, tickets were issued in regards to this law. It would also be cool to see if they held up in court.

Side note, I'm completely for the night time speed limit as it can be tough to navigate even as an experienced boater. I do understand that certain boats need certain speeds to stay on plane as well.

[BroadHopper]

I am a new boater and basically new to Lake Winni. I have no experience with how it used to be but I have to say I am very pleased with how many friendly and helpful people I have come across. We have been helped by so many people when we have tried to anchor or dock. Our new neighbors at the marina have been full of helpful tips and have welcomed us in to the "family". Sometimes when you look for the bad, you see the bad. There will always be the bad seeds but I like to think they don't out number the good. Hope you start running in to more of the good!

The folks that keeps their boats at a large marina such as MVYC or WAM are different. Due to the close proximity of boats, and the commonality between the folks that stay at a marina, fuels a camaderie like no other. Like the old days. Stick around a few years and you will no what I mean.

I know folks who didn't care for the crowd in a particular marina, will move on to another marina. I can't understand the folks who moved to Winnipesaukee, who doesn't like it, decides to 'rock the boat' and hopefully make 'change for the better'. Why can't they moved on? Plenty of waterfront property outside of Winnipesaukee. My new neighbors actually tried to make me move! I am the weirdo, yet I was here first!

[Bear Islander]

...their true intentions was to rid the lake of performance boats due to their friend dying in a night time accident, that involved a performance boat but speed was not a factor at all. Even with today's limits it woudn't have been considered a speed issue...

Incredible that you can say that when the MPs speed estimate was HIGHER than the current speed limit. That's not really important, but it is one of the little FACTS that anti-sl people keep forgetting. Yes, I know, only 3 mph higher, but higher is higher.

I have many reasons for supporting the SL but number one is children's camps. Some camps are keeping their small boats in on weekends because of the cowboy atmosphere on the lake. To me that is an indication that things are getting out of control and something needs to be done. There is also the question of where the lake is going. What will it be like in 5, 10 or 20 years? Three NE states have state wide speed limits. As more limits are enacted elsewhere is Winni to be the destination for speed enthusiasts? I don't like that idea. We need a speed limit now so hopefully most of these people will go somewhere else.

The single word answer to why we have a speed limit is fear. The fear of a camp director to send out his boats. The fear of a kayaker to come to this lake. The fear of an elderly couple to leave their island home on a weekend. That last one is VERY real. The fear of a parent to let their child take out a boat or canoe. The fear that our beautiful natural resource is being taken over by a small minority of "get out of my way" boaters.

For some it is about erosion, water quality, loon nests, fair distribution of resources, pollution, tourist dollars, wake damage, privacy, noise and yes even boating accidents.

[OCDACTIVE]

Incredible that you can say that when the MPs speed estimate was HIGHER than the current speed limit. That's not really important, but it is one of the little FACTS that anti-sl people keep forgetting. Yes, I know, only 3 mph higher, but higher is higher.

I have many reasons for supporting the SL but number one is children's camps. Some camps are keeping their small boats in on weekends because of the cowboy atmosphere on the lake. To me that is an indication that things are getting out of control and something needs to be done. There is also the question of where the lake is going. What will it be like in 5, 10 or 20 years? Three NE states have state wide speed limits. As more limits are enacted elsewhere is Winni to be the destination for speed enthusiasts? I don't like that idea. We need a speed limit now so hopefully most of these people will go somewhere else.

The single word answer to why we have a speed limit is fear. The fear of a camp director to send out his boats. The fear of a kayaker to come to this lake. The fear of an elderly couple to leave their island home on a weekend. That last one is VERY real. The fear of a parent to let their child take out a boat or canoe. The fear that our beautiful natural resource is being taken over by a small minority of "get out of my way" boaters.

For some it is about erosion, water quality, loon nests, fair distribution of resources, pollution, tourist dollars, wake damage, privacy, noise and yes even boating accidents.

Hey BI... This is why we will always keep going round and round.

1. yes I apologize the "ESTIMATED" speed was 28mph (but remember they just pushed it to 30 mph night time).. But that is splitting hairs. We both know "speed" was not the issue. But this tragic event is the underlying reason why the people who started their agenda for the speed limits. You can't argue that, but it is funny that you nor the pro-sl crowd will even admit to it.

2. Camps....... Yes we all know you were a camp director and want to SL's to help "protect" the camps. I will never convince you otherwise and you will never convince me that the SL helps protect the camps more then putting resources towards enforcing the 150' law near the camps. So we can agree to disagree there.

3. Seriously though, you don't "need" a speed limit to deter people from coming to the lake... Those who truely want to continously go fast and test their boats go to the ocean anyway. Never have I ever heard one of my offshore race boat captains say "I can't wait to get to a lake to test my boat". The true race boats go to the ocean because they can't be muffled and they would cross the lake too quickly before getting dialed in anyway.. That is a reaching argument.

4. Fear.. You hit it.. But how is this solved by a SL. People fear fast boats?? We have all agreed that the majority of boats on the lake can not exceed 45 mph anyway. This doesn't improve fear because as this thread is titled "Nothing has changed" even Dir. Barrett said in the House Trasportation Hearing "nothing will change on the lake either way" so why does the SL calm this fear? Nothing has changed...

5. You mentioned in your last post that Safety has nothing to do with it. However if people are fearful that they aren't "safe" then how doesn't safety have everything to do with it. If we truely want to improve safety on the lake doesn't this actually not only improve the lake but help to calm those fears.

I still think this is where the Pro-SL's aguments fall off the track because they can not be substaniated. Feelings should not dictate law.

We can continue this over a beer soon.. (o'douls for me :D)

[DEJ]

BI, you stated "the MPs speed estimate was HIGHER than the current speed limit".

Estimate is the key word here, it very well could have been 24mph but we know that does not fit your agenda. Perhaps this type of stuff is why some here do not trust you and question your motives.

[Shreddy]

Incredible that you can say that when the MPs speed estimate was HIGHER than the current speed limit. That's not really important, but it is one of the little FACTS that anti-sl people keep forgetting. Yes, I know, only 3 mph higher, but higher is higher.

I have many reasons for supporting the SL but number one is children's camps. Some camps are keeping their small boats in on weekends because of the cowboy atmosphere on the lake. To me that is an indication that things are getting out of control and something needs to be done. There is also the question of where the lake is going. What will it be like in 5, 10 or 20 years? Three NE states have state wide speed limits. As more limits are enacted elsewhere is Winni to be the destination for speed enthusiasts? I don't like that idea. We need a speed limit now so hopefully most of these people will go somewhere else.

The single word answer to why we have a speed limit is fear. The fear of a camp director to send out his boats. The fear of a kayaker to come to this lake. The fear of an elderly couple to leave their island home on a weekend. That last one is VERY real. The fear of a parent to let their child take out a boat or canoe. The fear that our beautiful natural resource is being taken over by a small minority of "get out of my way" boaters.

For some it is about erosion, water quality, loon nests, fair distribution of resources, pollution, tourist dollars, wake damage, privacy, noise and yes even boating accidents.

Cowboys don't need to go over 45mph to be cowboys, most can't even go 45mph. The speed limit encompasses a safety problem for MAYBE (and I'll admit this is speculation), 20% at most, of operators on the lake and that is INCLUDING PWC's as well. Most vessels simply can't reach that speed. It's apparent that the ones that do, do not do it often (yes the do it).

The issue of safety during the day is not one of speed but rather knowledge of how to operate a boat, understanding of laws already enacted (excluding the SL law), and knowledge of how to properly navigate the lake.

I'm not trying to be one-sided but I feel strongly about my above opinion.

[LIforrelaxin]

I am going to stay out of all prior discussion here. And straight up answer the question of how has the lake changed this year... or more to the point over the last two years with speed limits. Well to tell you the truth I really haven't seen an overall change that would indicate to me that there has been any change what so ever. As the speed limit itself is extremely hard and time consuming to enforce and the MP presence on the lake is better spent doing other things I really have not felt as though the speed limit or the enforcing of it has slowed people down.

I continue to see the same problems I have always seen by inconsiderate boaters, or even the considerate boaters that prove once in a while that we are all human and make mistakes. Fortunately for them these things always seem to happen when the MP isn't around. And when the MP is around they are looking for the more serious and more easily enforced infractions.

This past summer I have had issues with a Marina owner, who later called and apologized to me for his actions, to rental boat owners, and everyone in between. All of these problems would be dealt with laws already in existence prior to the SL, through things that would most easily be dealt with by having a Coast Guard #6 style law calling for speeds that are safe and prudent for the given conditions.

I feel that if people keep trying to regulate the boating on Winnipesaukee the are going to eventually harm what we have all come to love. A place where we can come and enjoy ourselves. Quite personally I know what I have to deal with when I take my boat out. I know where to go on the lake when I don't want to deal with the crowds. And I accept the stress of being in the busy areas when I go there...

I also feel that the people that think SL will make things safer....or more enjoyable are only kidding themselves. Boats that break the speed limits are few and far between... short for short burst here and there it happens but... it not like there are cowboys that are flying around at either 6mph or 50mph and don't know how to achieve anything in between. If you aren't comfortable on the lake, you aren't going to be, no mater how many laws and regulations there are, and that is the bottom line... I have more trouble with the issues mother nature throws at me out on the lake then anything....

[LIforrelaxin]

The single word answer to why we have a speed limit is fear. The fear of a camp director to send out his boats. The fear of a kayaker to come to this lake. The fear of an elderly couple to leave their island home on a weekend. That last one is VERY real. The fear of a parent to let their child take out a boat or canoe. The fear that our beautiful natural resource is being taken over by a small minority of "get out of my way" boaters.



Bear Islander,

I will totally agree with this one word answer here.... Fear is the problem and the reason we ended up with the Law.... The problem is that no matter how many rules and regulations are put into place fears will never be calmed... because there is always something new to fear.... Fears must be dealt with...
not regulated.

[loony]

let the facts speak for themselves.

I have not gone searching too much, but what I'd like to see is the marine patrol or a local newspaper publish marine patrol reports, similar to weekly police reports you read in the paper. This IS public information, but I never see it published.
This way we know how many citations were given out, and for what.
We'll also find out what their focus is.

If anyone know where to find it please share it.

[VtSteve]

1) I have many reasons for supporting the SL but number one is children's camps. Some camps are keeping their small boats in on weekends because of the cowboy atmosphere on the lake. To me that is an indication that things are getting out of control and something needs to be done.

2) There is also the question of where the lake is going. What will it be like in 5, 10 or 20 years? Three NE states have state wide speed limits. As more limits are enacted elsewhere is Winni to be the destination for speed enthusiasts? I don't like that idea. We need a speed limit now so hopefully most of these people will go somewhere else.

3) The single word answer to why we have a speed limit is fear. The fear of a camp director to send out his boats. The fear of a kayaker to come to this lake. The fear of an elderly couple to leave their island home on a weekend. That last one is VERY real. The fear of a parent to let their child take out a boat or canoe. The fear that our beautiful natural resource is being taken over by a small minority of "get out of my way" boaters.


4) For some it is about erosion, water quality, loon nests, fair distribution of resources, pollution, tourist dollars, wake damage, privacy, noise and yes even boating accidents.


1) So what about this year BI? Are the camps letting everyone out on the water again?

2) I'll have to agree with you on that vision. Some kind of limit might be a deterrent for the rogue cowboy. I don't agree with 45 mph, I think that's ridiculous. But you've supported different limits like me, so we're still in agreement.

3) I'll address the "get out of my way boaters" first. Again, I agree. I boat around numerous obstacles here. The worst are large sailboats, and lots of them. Many performance boats, lots of tubers and whatevers. I've had no problems at all with all but one arrogant performance boater. The rest are very friendly, and for the most part, handle their crafts well. If I had to define the GOOMW boater, I'd say a day boater with a tube, or a drunk boater.

As for fear? Subjective. If there's that many boaters that elicit fear, then I'd say an enforcement problem is huge. If they are afraid because they fear noise or size? Then I don't know what to tell you. I know your NWZ on Bear Island has been a constant problem. As you well know, enforcement works only if they are there. (got one this year) :laugh:


We share a concern that too many people are arrogant, careless, too many drinkers, and cowboys of all kinds. You were realistic in thinking that the MP would not have increased funds, nor would the SL supporters assist in any way to mention enforcement. The ironic part is many SL proponents have a love/hate relationship with the MP.


Thanks for being a good person to have on board for discussions BI. I mean that :)

[hazelnut]

When I got involved in this I read every post, article, thread, news media interview etc. and everyone of them cried being afraid and safety issues as the top priority. I sat in the hearings and this was again the arguement over and over again.



...and speaking of those hearings. My lord the out and out lies that one specific Marina Owner told were enough to make your head spin. I can not believe that this man could sit there and answer questions and actually flat out LIE to the Transportation Committee just to pass a stupid SL law. It was actually scary and I might chalk it up to senility because he's kind of really old.
Then there was this large woman that got up and told this tall tale of a boat that was about to hit her and she heard a girl on the offending boat say "look out daddy!" So I'm sitting there like "Great story about a 150 rule violation and how fast or should I say how slow does a boat have to be going for you to be able to hear the occupants of said boat." :laugh: The whole hearing process was hysterical as person after person got up and told these stories of near misses and almost what if's. One more sensational than the next. All stories had one detail or another that made it impossible for the boat in each scenario to be going more than 20MPH, such as "I saw he wasn't looking" or "I heard her say" "His bow was way high in the air and he couldn't see us." etc. etc. etc. The worst of them all was this woman who was asked if she would be open to allowing the broads to be a higher speed or a seasonal limit and she flat out said no! The reason, She uses the broads to go shopping and so do other Islanders. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

I can't make this stuff up. I'm sure we could have a whole thread on this topic though.

Oh woops the original question, No the lake hasn't changed, one bit. Still the same knuckleheads doing the same things they always did. Ignoring the 150foot and being discourteous. The worst one to me is the Right of Way. Isn't that boating 101?

[sunset on the dock]

The worst of them all was this woman who was asked if she would be open to allowing the broads to be a higher speed or a seasonal limit and she flat out said no! The reason, She uses the broads to go shopping and so do other Islanders. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

I can't make this stuff up. I'm sure we could have a whole thread on this topic

Umh....I was there too. You said she lived on an island? Was she shopping for food? Your spin might make it look like she was shopping for a new hat.

[MAXUM]

Dramatics and embellishment unfortunately grab people's attention even though many statements are simply inaccurate. We also live in a time where public forums like this exist and anyone can put anything on them and get people all whipped up. So the combination of the two can and does have a toxic affect on any decisions that are being made. This is why it is imperative that the rhetoric for and against must be taken at face value and under the context it's given. These hearings must be presented with hard data that can be presented as evidence to separate fact from fiction.

Unfortunately now a days its far easier to just paint a picture that suits your agenda and somehow that is acceptable and taken seriously.

[VtSteve]

Sounds like cable TV Max :rolleye2:

[MAXUM]

Not to far off VTSteve, there is a fine line between fact and fiction.

There is little argument that the successful passage of the SL and various NWZ's are a result of fear and to a great degree spin. I make no bones about it, I favored the SL but not for the reason many here site. I had no doubts that it would NOT make the lake any safer and to date I see no evidence that is has. What I do think it does is provide a valuable tool for the MP to use when necessary when dealing with a reckless operator. The current laws, such as for example "reckless operation" is far to vague and therefore a judgment call by the MP who witnessed said behavior. If challenged in court it can be tough to prove. A speed limit violation can be proven and therefore provides a cut and dry means to have a violation stick.

That said, I don't believe it was necessary to sanction the entire lake to a limit, rather there are areas where a speed limit is not necessary such as the broads while other areas a limit could have been put into place. This would have created IMHO far less division and would have provided a solution were those that want to go fast can and keep things under relative control elsewhere. There is no reason why this could not have been done, but such ideas were lost to those that were vehemently on one side of the issue or another.

I'd be curious to know who thinks this is unreasonable and if so why?

Finally for the purposes of disclosure, I am now a proud VIP member of SBONH and have a whole lot of respect for this organization, it's members and their efforts to promote safety through education.

[hazelnut]

Umh....I was there too. You said she lived on an island? Was she shopping for food? Your spin might make it look like she was shopping for a new hat.

Food, hats, whatever :laugh: Let's go with food, even better: "I need to go grocery shopping so everyone on the lake needs to slow down for me." :laugh:

Either way SOTD don't you see how silly this logic is. I am surprised the Committee didn't actually laugh in her face. I heard many chuckles in the room during her "testimony," it was hard to keep a straight face.

Hey for what it is worth the hearings were pretty entertaining. The fantastic stories of fear and danger were worthy of movie offers from Hollywood.

[hazelnut]

Not to far off VTSteve, there is a fine line between fact and fiction.

There is little argument that the successful passage of the SL and various NWZ's are a result of fear and to a great degree spin. I make no bones about it, I favored the SL but not for the reason many here site. I had no doubts that it would NOT make the lake any safer and to date I see no evidence that is has. What I do think it does is provide a valuable tool for the MP to use when necessary when dealing with a reckless operator. The current laws, such as for example "reckless operation" is far to vague and therefore a judgment call by the MP who witnessed said behavior. If challenged in court it can be tough to prove. A speed limit violation can be proven and therefore provides a cut and dry means to have a violation stick.

That said, I don't believe it was necessary to sanction the entire lake to a limit, rather there are areas where a speed limit is not necessary such as the broads while other areas a limit could have been put into place. This would have created IMHO far less division and would have provided a solution were those that want to go fast can and keep things under relative control elsewhere. There is no reason why this could not have been done, but such ideas were lost to those that were vehemently on one side of the issue or another.

I'd be curious to know who thinks this is unreasonable and if so why?

Finally for the purposes of disclosure, I am now a proud VIP member of SBONH and have a whole lot of respect for this organization, it's members and their efforts to promote safety through education.


Maxum that was a refreshing post! WOW. I am an opponent to the SL law. However, you make great points without sensationalism. You have a logical viewpoint that makes good sense. I still think the Coast Guard Rule (6) is it? Could work for the lake, (Reasonable and Prudent). Either way I appreciate your perspective on the matter. In the end I thought to myself that I could live with exactly what you suggested. Add to that we keep a 30MPH night time SL and I am on board. Unfortunately when this "keep the broads open" was suggested the people who were ardent supporters, namely the woman who needs to go shopping:laugh:, were seen for their real motives. They were completely against compromise and it was evident to many that their agenda was not safety. It was and always will be an attempt to rid the lake of what they consider undesirable boats. Again with the NIMBY attitude.

[BroadHopper]

Now we are back on the same subject that gets Don teed. Let's get back on the subject if the lake is better.

A few things off topic. I am in complete agreement with BI about fear around the summer camps. Summer camps should have NWZ around the front of their properties. Even have a buoy or two situated out front to steer the boats away. That's a heck of a lot more logical than a lake wide SL.

I was a YMCA camp director in my days. Speed limits was not a problem. It is the incosiderate boaters that I feared the most. Steering them away form the camps lakefront is the best solution.

As for Winfabs, I was one of the founding members. The original intent of Winfabs was to save property value as I stated in another thread. Lake George property values rised after the speed limits was enacted. Majority of the founders are not native of the area so they have no clue what the lake was like. They started the fear spin to convinced the common folks to vote for the new law.

As for Rep. Pilliod, his famous 'Searays belong in the seas' dialogue is what really set off this high performance debate.

Let's not argue about all this here. Do something productive and notify your representatives that they have been misleaded and that we really need no boating zones around the summer camps, Rule #6, and a distracted boating law. Tell them they need to do this if they plan on staying another term!

Another thing. I strongly believe the NWZ at the Barber's Pole is proposed because of the summer camp next to it. Let's put a couple of bouys out there. That will save the headache of erosion on the shores when boat come off/on plane.

[VtSteve]

Most of the outspoken proponents of one law or another on the lake flat out lied, both about their intentions, and what was actually happening on the lake. There were many SL supporters that had some good ideas, presented them honestly, and were generally good people to deal with. It's unfortunate that so many people couldn't see past angry and contentious posts and see the outright lies that caused much of the angst.

Some had the vision to look way ahead, and saw some kind of SL as a way to protect Winni from becoming a Havasu or LOTO or other such crazy spots. Those people made me think hard and long, and did sway my opinion over time. I thought maybe a 65 SL daytime might satisfy everyone more or less.

But I might add, as BI stated many times, the SL opponents were not willing the first go around to compromise on anything. But it's hard to compromise, or even discuss issues, when one side has no facts, credibility, hides their true intentions, and generally pulls the wool over an unsuspecting public. Whatever the outcome on any issue, I'd prefer the process to be up front, and have people with honest character and integrity doing the advocation, for both sides. It's really sad that many still don't get this, maybe one day they will.

Now we have the BP NWZ issue. Fully supported behind the scenes by many of the same people. It's easy to spot them. They come out of nowhere with hysterical claims, broad-based stories of fear and woe, and leave people in the area scratching their heads as to when all of this mayhem is occurring. Some of the letters written in support of this NWZ are so far fetched and amazing, there must have been a common memo circulating that listed bullet lists for suggestions.

But I don't know who's more harmful to the lake. Those that produce the lies to gain support, or those that eat this BS up, then send nasty messages blaming us for pointing the lies out. The sheer idiocy of one supporter's comments. The MP saw repeated violations of the 150' safe passage rule, so lets have another new rule in place.


Regardless of position on any issue, I'm delighted to see many honest people come out here and state their opinions and stories. It's very refreshing, and would make for good discussion groups with the MP as well.

[VtSteve]

Sorry BH.

To stay on topic.....

BI stated many times that it was the camps he was concerned about, amongst other things. So back on topic, has it changed anything there?

[sunset on the dock]

Food, hats, whatever :laugh: Let's go with food, even better: "I need to go grocery shopping so everyone on the lake needs to slow down for me." :laugh:

Either way SOTD don't you see how silly this logic is. I am surprised the Committee didn't actually laugh in her face. I heard many chuckles in the room during her "testimony," it was hard to keep a straight face.



I didn't hear those chuckles but there were a few regarding attire and grooming appropriate for appearing in front of a legislative body. OCD seemed pretty much the only SL opponent who owned a tie. Mrs. Sunset commented about dirty torn jeans, people who hadn't visited a barber in way too long, sweatshirts with football logos, and women in tank tops. Now you'll probably argue that you don't need to dress to impress, that it's just a difference in age etc. but bottom line...there is an appropriate way to appear before a state legislative body. And judging simply by the outcome, that being overwhelming support in both houses, they were not impressed. Many thought the scruffy appearance of the opposition spoke volumes and helped our cause. JMO but your nasty and belittling comment about a lady who needs to pass through the broads for life's necessities needed to be addressed.

[LIforrelaxin]

Well BI brought up summer camps, and VtSteve has asked the question has there been any improvement in the camps water activities since the enactment of the Speed limits...

Well here is what I have to say, I have several camps around me... that I pass on my regular boating trips... I personally have not seen a decline in their water activities in the last 20 years. Certainly you don't see the younger kids in the canoes, kayaks and small sail boats on the weekends, but you do see the older kids. But this is what I would expect. And during the week, when I have had the chance they have kids of all ages out on the water, with counselors chasing them down...

Now somethings to not given the economy since 2000 I have noticed that all the camps have had dwindling attendance.... and it got even worse during the last 3 years. Now as attendance at the camps has gone down so to has the number of boats from said camps that you see on the water...

Now if that isn't bad enough we have Insurance to think about here two... in this day and age with sue happy lawyers and parents, camps are fighting for survival and trying to keep there insurance cost down... I wouldn't be surprised to find out that some of the camps, have less of a water presence on the weekends because of insurance reasons, and their policy is dictating that they keep the boats on sure for Sat. and Sunday.

Now when you add all these twist and turns into the pot there is another different picture that starts to form. A picture that is not one of speed and its effects. But rather one first of economic affordability and second of safety... safety is not dictated by speed.... safety is dictated by common sense, education, and adherence to the rules....

Additional rules and regulations are not going to revive the summer camp feel and the sight of kids in canoes, and sail fish out on the lake... however responsible boating through education and adherence to the rules will. The focus needs not to be on how can we further legislate the lake to control the behavior, the rules are there... the focus needs to get back to where it was 10-15 years ago, and be about how do we educate people, and get the money to the MP to enforce the adherence to the rules that are already in place.

[OCDACTIVE]

I didn't hear those chuckles but there were a few regarding attire and grooming appropriate for appearing in front of a legislative body. OCD seemed pretty much the only SL opponent who owned a tie. Mrs. Sunset commented about dirty torn jeans, people who hadn't visited a barber in way too long, sweatshirts with football logos, and women in tank tops. Now you'll probably argue that you don't need to dress to impress, that it's just a difference in age etc. but bottom line...there is an appropriate way to appear before a state legislative body. And judging simply by the outcome, that being overwhelming support in both houses, they were not impressed. Many thought the scruffy appearance of the opposition spoke volumes and helped our cause. JMO but your nasty and belittling comment about a lady who needs to pass through the broads for life's necessities needed to be addressed.

Thanks Sunset.. I tried to look my best..

I heard the chuckles but that is neither here no there...

But again don't exaggerate, the lady in question lives in the bear island area. Boat is at Shep Browns. The broads are MILES away. The crossing is 1/4 mile wide...

The comment that gained chuckles was that the Broads are the hub of the lake and you can't get anywhere unless you go through them. This is simply a lie playing to the ignorance of the committee members who by their own admission (some) had never been to the lake.

We all know island residents choose a marina as close to their island as possible that normally does not have to take you into the Broads. With the excpetion of Parker Island and a few others these marina are normally in very accessible places so that people do not have travel in the broads due to the high winds and weather that can occur.

This is just another attempt of twisting the facts to try to gain support.

Pretty Silly....

PS. next hearing come and say hello! Are you coming to Hazelnuts tomorrow?

[hazelnut]

I didn't hear those chuckles but there were a few regarding attire and grooming appropriate for appearing in front of a legislative body. OCD seemed pretty much the only SL opponent who owned a tie. Mrs. Sunset commented about dirty torn jeans, people who hadn't visited a barber in way too long, sweatshirts with football logos, and women in tank tops. Now you'll probably argue that you don't need to dress to impress, that it's just a difference in age etc. but bottom line...there is an appropriate way to appear before a state legislative body. And judging simply by the outcome, that being overwhelming support in both houses, they were not impressed. Many thought the scruffy appearance of the opposition spoke volumes and helped our cause. JMO but your nasty and belittling comment about a lady who needs to pass through the broads for life's necessities needed to be addressed.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:: laugh::laugh:
Oh so now the SL was passed on a dress code. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:: laugh::laugh::laugh:

As for me I had Khaki Pants neatly pressed mind you, :) and a very nice button down shirt, cleaned and pressed. My only tragic flaw was that I wore my (mind you very expensive and brand new) Fleece Jacket with a tiny Patriots Logo located on the left side. I was freshly shaved and had a haircut just the day before. Heck I think I looked pretty darn good. :D I even got a wink from Ms. Clark. J/K

No the lady that feels the need to have the rest of the boating public slow down in the largest part of the lake so SHE can go grocery shopping needs to be addressed. What a complete joke. :rolleye1: Does she call Mother Nature and yell at her when the wind whips up the lake into 3 foot swells too? :rolleye2: Not to mention the fact that she doesn't even live on the Broads. Oh get this one of the people sitting with us on OUR side mind you has a house ON the Broads. I won't post her name but she is a member here. I believe she got a chuckle out of the comment from that woman and SHE actually uses the Broads to access her house. Sorry SOTD you need to lighten up and realize how silly all of that was. To paraphrase comments you have made:
It was like the SL opponents were driving around throwing puppies out of boats going 185 MPH while deliberately running down children in blow up boats in the middle of the broads.
For gods sake it was a Speed Limit hearing. Why all the lies just to pass a stupid silly law? Especially considering there was no reason for it. I mean I came in and just spoke from the heart and never once made up a silly story or made up lies. Yet your side got up and lied and stretched the truth and made up fantastic stories and we can't laugh about it. I mean no big deal it's over so now it's just kind of funny to recap and retell the tall tales of the hearing.""

Ok ok ok sorry sorry my apologies to BroadHopper and the rest of the membership for derailing this thread, I'll take this back on topic after I wipe the tears from my eyes from laughing so hard...

BroadHopper I think you bring up some great points. I fully support "camp zones." I really think that this would be a great cause to support. The reality is though the general lake itself has not changed one way or the other this summer. I still think that education is going to be the ultimate answer. Even if it means increased patrol and random checkpoints. I hate to even say it but it may come to that some day. What we need is a way to increase revenue for the Marine Patrol to allow them to increase their numbers. Non-motorized registration fees anyone? :eek:

[BroadHopper]

As a respectable Senior financial officer of a Fortune 100 company, I realized appearance makes a big difference in a presentation. Maybe next time I will dig out my 'Woodstock' attire and hopefully fit in to them :D

[classic22]

I didn't hear those chuckles but there were a few regarding attire and grooming appropriate for appearing in front of a legislative body. OCD seemed pretty much the only SL opponent who owned a tie. Mrs. Sunset commented about dirty torn jeans, people who hadn't visited a barber in way too long, sweatshirts with football logos, and women in tank tops. Now you'll probably argue that you don't need to dress to impress, that it's just a difference in age etc. but bottom line...there is an appropriate way to appear before a state legislative body. And judging simply by the outcome, that being overwhelming support in both houses, they were not impressed. Many thought the scruffy appearance of the opposition spoke volumes and helped our cause. JMO but your nasty and belittling comment about a lady who needs to pass through the broads for life's necessities needed to be addressed.

Not quite sure how some intolerant, story imbelishing women crossing the broads to shop for hats or a loaf of bread has any thing to do with how people may or may not have dressed for the hearings, but I know I was there in suit and tie, and many others who were there testifiying against speed limits were wearing appropriate attire. Did I see one guy come in and testify in a pair of jeans? sure did.....although he was not part of the organized oposition, who cares...he probably stopped in from his job, testified and left...he got involved. Now lets look at the people who testified for the speed limit...most of them fossils, Mrs Kravitz types, cant have a good time because they are miserable people in general, and want every one else to be miserable. Most were dressed frumpy looking in clothing popular in the Carter administration, wearing velcro tie sneakers...now thats what I call dressed for success. If you believe that how people may or may not have appeared before the hearings is what caused them to vote for speed limits, I believe you are sadly mistaken. In reality the law was voted in by a legislature, that came to power in a tide of Obamamism that washed over our state and country. The good news is this little social experiment will be well on its way to being repaired come this november. Stay tuned.

[Kracken]

I didn't hear those chuckles but there were a few regarding attire and grooming appropriate for appearing in front of a legislative body. OCD seemed pretty much the only SL opponent who owned a tie. Mrs. Sunset commented about dirty torn jeans, people who hadn't visited a barber in way too long, sweatshirts with football logos, and women in tank tops. Now you'll probably argue that you don't need to dress to impress, that it's just a difference in age etc. but bottom line...there is an appropriate way to appear before a state legislative body. And judging simply by the outcome, that being overwhelming support in both houses, they were not impressed. Many thought the scruffy appearance of the opposition spoke volumes and helped our cause. JMO but your nasty and belittling comment about a lady who needs to pass through the broads for life's necessities needed to be addressed.

Since we are talking about what to wear when meeting with the New Hampshire Legislators I think the most important accessory would have to be a broom. :D

[Kracken]

I have to give credit where credit is due.

Sunset on The Dock is absolutely right.


The speed limit opposition was grossly unprepared at every turn, while the supporters were well funded, organized, prepared and professionally dressed.

Hopefully there is a lesson learned.

[MAXUM]

One can only hope that in time this subject can be re-visited and I see no reason why some areas of the lake should not be re-opened for those that would like to go faster than 45 MPH.

[VtSteve]

I think a lesson was learned. But it would appear that those that may have been unprepared, were also naive. Most good people that value their character, would be embarrassed to continue a discussion within a group that has found them to be deceitful.

I always knew you were slick SOTD, but even the slipperiest scamster slips up eventually. This past month, you've set a new record. I know for sure you would never have belittled people for their attire if you wanted the discussion to continue. You're a master baiter, that can tell fables fluently without remorse or regret. I've had a lot of experience working amongst regulators, professional paid experts and witnesses. Some people just have the knack, thankfully, a small minority. But when that certain smell is in the air, bells and sirens go off.

Usually people at the local level don't go to such extremes as you to carefully craft, and continually repeat falsehoods for such small gains. If part of a grander plan, that makes sense for players. But at this level, it seems almost pathological.

I think the title of this thread should change. It should be entitled

"What the heck are these people really up to?"

I think even people that support the SL or other laws may be to embarrassed to comment for fear of being on your side. For those people that either testified before, or have written letters this year on the NWZ, did you give them coaching lessons, or just write the letters yourself?

[winni83]

Does the word “elitist” ring a bell? I would be more concerned about deception rather than appearance. A classic example of purporting to respond to an allegedly “nasty and belittling comment” by making your own nasty and belittling comment. You do not like what your opponents say, which is your right, but now you do not like how they look. Did they have an offensive odor too? Perhaps they did not bathe to your satisfaction or perhaps their very existence perturbs you, especially if these people have the gall to occupy the same body of water as you.

[Bear Islander]

What is so strange about a resident of the Bear Island area having to go through the Broads to shop? I don't know if there is an official definition of "The Broads" but around here it includes the east side of Bear Island.

Someone said she claimed to be from the Bear Island "area". Could that be Six Mile Island? The absolutely have to go through the broads to shop.

I know some people call the waters south of Three Mile Island the "Northern Broads" but couldn't that be shortened to Broads. Perhaps that woman was correct and you guys are in the wrong on this one.

[DEJ]

Perhaps that woman was correct and you guys are in the wrong on this one.

Perhaps, however as usual you present nothing but your opinion on this issue. Perhaps they were right?

[MAXUM]

I think a lesson was learned. But it would appear that those that may have been unprepared, were also naive. Most good people that value their character, would be embarrassed to continue a discussion within a group that has found them to be deceitful.

I always knew you were slick SOTD, but even the slipperiest scamster slips up eventually. This past month, you've set a new record. I know for sure you would never have belittled people for their attire if you wanted the discussion to continue. You're a master baiter, that can tell fables fluently without remorse or regret. I've had a lot of experience working amongst regulators, professional paid experts and witnesses. Some people just have the knack, thankfully, a small minority. But when that certain smell is in the air, bells and sirens go off.

Usually people at the local level don't go to such extremes as you to carefully craft, and continually repeat falsehoods for such small gains. If part of a grander plan, that makes sense for players. But at this level, it seems almost pathological.

I think the title of this thread should change. It should be entitled

"What the heck are these people really up to?"

I think even people that support the SL or other laws may be to embarrassed to comment for fear of being on your side. For those people that either testified before, or have written letters this year on the NWZ, did you give them coaching lessons, or just write the letters yourself?

If I may I think there is an easy way to sum this up - and is applicable to various subjects, especially when discussing politics. If you the position you take is simply indefensible then smear and demonize your opponent. What those that engage in this kind of rhetoric don't realize is that eventually you loose all credibility. Not only that it leads to a wave of opposition to your position, for no other reason than your behavior represents something foul.

** Just for clarification, what I said here is to augment that which VtSteve is pointing out as I whole heartily agree with his premise and who it is targeted to. In no way was I intending to suggest that VtSteve is engaging in the behavior described. On the contrary I respect his contributions along with many others who have put substance and thought into their postings on this debate which found itself meandering off on unrelated tangents.**

[Bear Islander]

Contrary to popular belief, that fatal accident many years ago was not the reason Bear islanders started a push for a speed limit. The reason was the growing cowboy atmosphere, the "get out of my way" mentality. That accident was however the "impetus" behind the speed limit. It was the shock that got some people up off their butts with the determination to do something about the lakes problems.

They felt a speed limit was a do-able solution. More enforcement and education might have been a better solution, but they require serious funding, and that just was NOT going to happen. Better to go with a plan that might actually happen, than with a better plan that has no chance at all.

The speed limit was never intended to "fix" the lake. It is just one way to make things a little better over time. Or perhaps just slow the rate of decline. It is not a "magic bullet" fix and was never intended as such. A speed limit does not bring about a quick victory, it will not "change the lake" in only a year or two. It will change the lake by thousands of small victories.

My brother-in-laws friend has been bringing his performance boat to Winni for years. This year he went to Long Lake because of the speed limit. A small victory.

Imagine a wife standing in a boat showroom and saying "why are we spending all this extra cash for a boat that will go 80 MPH when the lake has a 45 MPH limit?" You can also imagine the husband with a pained expression and a salesman that is looking at the floor. When this happens it will be another small victory.

The speed limit, enforced or not, sets a standard of behavior. It points the lake in a different direction. It sends a message to the cowboys. And that message is "go elsewhere".

[fatlazyless]

If you read the Winnipesaukee speed limits law passed by the NH legislature, it allows for organized motorboat racing. So, why not try for some type of racing three-hour time span, say Saturdays from 9-noon, and seek out some friendly commercial sponsors who get their logo on one of the marker buoys.

Picture this; four large marker buoys that delineate a 5-mile dragstrip on the water somewhere. Each marker buoy has a friendly commercial sponsor such as Progressive Insurance, Hannaford's, Hawaiian Suntan bikini team, and H K Motorsports.

Picture this; it's 9am Saturday at the starting line, a spot between Parker Island and Clay Point: Ladies & Gentlemen, start your engines; ready, set, and bang.......and it's the start to another Lake Winnipesaukee, Saturday morning at the weekly, watery drag strip for a speedy morning at the races.....yahooooo....weeee-doggie! That could be a very happening event!

Sounds good....gotta love the sound of V8 big-blocks cranking out 625 horses as the big boats power down the broads.....a very happening weekly event! Would it attract a spectator's gallery of boaters just there to watch the races? Most likely yes......I know I'd be there! So, be there, or be a square.....high speed motorboats have a place to go.....on a watery drag strip.....and everybody is happy......budda-budda-boom!

[VtSteve]

That accident was however the "impetus" behind the speed limit. It was the shock that got some people up off their butts with the determination to do something about the lakes problems.


The speed limit, enforced or not, sets a standard of behavior. It points the lake in a different direction. It sends a message to the cowboys. And that message is "go elsewhere".

Two very conflicting statements. Congress acts like the first, flinging any terrible law at whatever the problem of the day is.

The message to the cowboys used to be Wyatt Earp. Now it's sending "messages". So there are still idiots on the lake, going well under the speed limit, most of whom do not drive high HP boats.

I gave you too much credit BI.

[Yankee]

Contrary to popular belief, that fatal accident many years ago was not the reason Bear islanders started a push for a speed limit. The reason was the growing cowboy atmosphere, the "get out of my way" mentality. That accident was however the "impetus" behind the speed limit. It was the shock that got some people up off their butts with the determination to do something about the lakes problems.

They felt a speed limit was a do-able solution. More enforcement and education might have been a better solution, but they require serious funding, and that just was NOT going to happen. Better to go with a plan that might actually happen, than with a better plan that has no chance at all.

The speed limit was never intended to "fix" the lake. It is just one way to make things a little better over time. Or perhaps just slow the rate of decline. It is not a "magic bullet" fix and was never intended as such. A speed limit does not bring about a quick victory, it will not "change the lake" in only a year or two. It will change the lake by thousands of small victories.

My brother-in-laws friend has been bringing his performance boat to Winni for years. This year he went to Long Lake because of the speed limit. A small victory.

Imagine a wife standing in a boat showroom and saying "why are we spending all this extra cash for a boat that will go 80 MPH when the lake has a 45 MPH limit?" You can also imagine the husband with a pained expression and a salesman that is looking at the floor. When this happens it will be another small victory.

The speed limit, enforced or not, sets a standard of behavior. It points the lake in a different direction. It sends a message to the cowboys. And that message is "go elsewhere".

Funny, I just put a deposit down on another "performance boat" yesterday...trading in my '89 "performance boat" for another. A small defeat for you. As with the last I will use it in a safe and prudent manner that is suitable for the conditions in which I choose to operate it. As do my friends with their "performance boats". There has been no mass exodus of boats that can easily exceed the speed limit and that do on a regular basis. Or will there be.

Bear Islander you with your personal agenda as well as others of the same ilk will NEVER influence my decision to buy a certain type of boat or where or how to operate it. And I'm confident that my other "performance" minded boat owning friends to a person would agree with me. BTW, My wife suggested that it was time for a new one. Yet another apparent defeat.

I have yet to be pulled over in the broads when operating my boat, the same is true as when driving my car on I93 in excess of the SL. For those boaters that do get stopped for "speeding", I'd be willing to bet that they were also operating in an unsafe and imprudent manner in a high traffic area. Not out on the main part of the lake with plenty of room.

[MAXUM]

BTW, My wife suggested that it was time for a new one. Yet another apparent defeat.




Yankee - I think you've died and gone to heaven. The WIFE suggested it was time for a new one? Take care of that Mrs. she's a keeper!

[VtSteve]

So I'll answer my own question. No, the SL has done nothing to calm down the BI NWZ, but over a period of decades, perhaps most people will be either sailing, or driving 16' outboards with 5 hp, maybe even solar engines.

The wakes are big, and the HP limit we will seek in the future will put and end to any boat that has more than 300 hp, hopefully less than that. We knew that nothing would come of this law, but there will be more to come. And Jeezum Crow, we wanted to do something.

[Yankee]

You've hit it square on the head VTSteve. The next target will be the amount of horsepower that a boat can have. And after that, it will be limits on a boat's displacement. And because a boat won't be able to go fast anymore, the excuse will be the big scary wakes that they make.

I think that in the end, motorized boats will be outlawed except for the priviledged few.

[sunset on the dock]

"The sky is falling, the sky is falling".

[VtSteve]

At some point SOTD, you'll be recanting all of your great stories of sitting on the dock in peace and quiet. Similar to your new stories in the BP area, which conflict wildly with what you say the SL has done for the lake. The fact that you can so fluently spew this kind of waste and try to sell it as observations and truth, makes everyone suspect of all future moves.

I know you'll be able to do it, as you can do 180 degree turns on a dime better than anyone. At headway speed, I wonder how long it takes you to travel to the BP area.

[Bear Islander]

You've hit it square on the head VTSteve. The next target will be the amount of horsepower that a boat can have. And after that, it will be limits on a boat's displacement. And because a boat won't be able to go fast anymore, the excuse will be the big scary wakes that they make.

I think that in the end, motorized boats will be outlawed except for the priviledged few.

Instead of allowing the "privileged few" to use power boats, I hope it will be islanders that get to keep their power boats. After all, we NEED them to get to and from our homes.

However legislation like that will be a long time coming, if ever, and I will not support it.

What I will support is a 300 HP limit for boats manufactured after 2012. Exceptions for commercial boats and law enforcement obviously.

[winni83]

Instead of allowing the "privileged few" to use power boats, I hope it will be islanders that get to keep their power boats. After all, we NEED them to get to and from our homes.

However legislation like that will be a long time coming, if ever, and I will not support it.

What I will support is a 300 HP limit for boats manufactured after 2012. Exceptions for commercial boats and law enforcement obviously.


This simply astounds me. This is a quote which must be saved for future reference. My lord, my 25 foot cuddy is within 40 horsepower of that limit and it is underpowered by most standards. If I abide by the relevant speed limit and obey the various boating, navigation and rules of passage, of what business is it of your to limit the horsepower on my boat? Are you postulating that a boat of more than the "approved" horsepower is prima facie evidence that one is a cowboy or will otherwise violate the above rules, or is this simply in pursuit of what I now believe to be the ultimate goal of Winnfabs and its fellow travelers, namely through various means over a period of time to effectively ban all but the boats which the Winnfabs crowd approves of. How about we make rules so that no boat capable of violating all of the other rules can be operated on the Lake – problem of enforcement and marine patrol funding solved! First a speed limit, then reductions in the speed limit, then proliferating no wake zones, then a horsepower restriction, then a reduction in the horsepower restriction and then whatever else this group can think of. I think this “make the lake safe” mantra has confirmed its true intentions and in so doing may have awakened a sleeping giant among those who, like me, own more kayaks, row boats and canoes than power boats, have one boat which on a good day can maybe exceed the daytime speed limit, but have had it up to my eyeballs with this crowd. I certainly will do all I can at the next opportunity to counter this trend.

[Bear Islander]

Many lakes and ponds in New Hampshire and around the country have horsepower limits. I have argued on this forum for a HP limit since 2002, nothing new about that.

I have read many times that the only solution to the cowboy mentality is enforcement and education. That there is no way to legislate a solution. But think about the effects of a REALLY low HP limit. A 100 HP or 50 HP limit would change this lake over night. A drastic solution to be sure. However the premise does prove that you CAN legislate serious change.

[sunset on the dock]

At some point SOTD, you'll be recanting all of your great stories of sitting on the dock in peace and quiet. Similar to your new stories in the BP area, which conflict wildly with what you say the SL has done for the lake. The fact that you can so fluently spew this kind of waste and try to sell it as observations and truth, makes everyone suspect of all future moves.



No contradiction at all. Unquestionably the lake is quieter and more civilized than it's been in many years. Many agree. And yes, we did go to the BP today and saw boats going in both directions through this narrow area. It didn't take long, maybe 5 minutes, to see how fast boats were closer than 150' from the island, each other, and that the wakes were quite large. I do indeed pity the people on those 2 little islands, if for no other reason than that irritating drone from the GFBL's that passed. Didn't see Cecil B. Demille, a.k.a. HN filming however. And given the number of posters who regularly brag about breaking the SL (and one who bragged last year and probably wishes he hadn't), I hope these people fight to retain their hard won gains. As for all the futile talk that the SL could ever be repealed, I would think the Little Birch and Squirrel Is. people would use that argument too.
Hey...what happened to that kinder, gentler VtSteve who promised to behave a short while back? Now that was a short lived Epiphany.

[Skip]

Many lakes and ponds in New Hampshire and around the country have horsepower limits. I have argued on this forum for a HP limit since 2002, nothing new about that.

I have read many times that the only solution to the cowboy mentality is enforcement and education. That there is no way to legislate a solution. But think about the effects of a REALLY low HP limit. A 100 HP or 50 HP limit would change this lake over night. A drastic solution to be sure. However the premise does prove that you CAN legislate serious change.


Good point.

And while they are considerably smaller than the big Lake, there are a number of bodies of water in New Hampshire that already have horsepower limits. So indeed the lawmakers here in New Hampshire are also quite familiar with that concept.

I am confused about one thing though.

Those that supported the speed limit legislation by and large believe that there has been a positive effect on the Lake since implementation. A positive effect means that if the State believes in that perception then further legislation or restrictions are probably not that imminent. It is the nature of politics.

On the flip side of the coin a number of folks here opposed to speed limit legislation continue to state that the regulation has had no effect, and give numerous examples of how the Lake, in their perception, remains as or more dangerous. A negative effect usually results in the State not rolling back legislation, but in increasing more and more layered legislation to force people into compliance. It is the nature of politics.

Without taking sides in the debate, if I was a legislator with little or no ties to the Lake (like many are) and I viewed this website as an authoritive source of information (to which many here argued when the boating thread was temporarily moderated) I could easily be convinced that additional legislation is warranted. A lobbyist may not have a hard time convincing me of same.

I'm not taking sides in the debate but just offering an insight as to not only how the speed limit legislation was passed, with all its additional riders (dmv points, all water bodies subjected to General Boating requirements) but how Bear Islander's predictions could easily pass the Legislature in future sessions.

Interesting corners, in my humble opinion, that some folks may be painting themselves in to! ;)

[VitaBene]

Good point.

And while they are considerably smaller than the big Lake, there are a number of bodies of water in New Hampshire that already have horsepower limits. So indeed the lawmakers here in New Hampshire are also quite familiar with that concept.

I am confused about one thing though.

Those that supported the speed limit legislation by and large believe that there has been a positive effect on the Lake since implementation. A positive effect means that if the State believes in that perception then further legislation or restrictions are probably not that imminent. It is the nature of politics.

On the flip side of the coin a number of folks here opposed to speed limit legislation continue to state that the regulation has had no effect, and give numerous examples of how the Lake, in their perception, remains as or more dangerous. A negative effect usually results in the State not rolling back legislation, but in increasing more and more layered legislation to force people into compliance.

Without taking sides in the debate, if I was a legislator with little or no ties to the Lake (like many are) and I viewed this website as an authoritative source of information (to which many here argued when the boating thread was temporarily moderated) I could easily be convinced that additional legislation is warranted. A lobbyist may not have a hard time convincing me of same.

I'm not taking sides in the debate but just offering an insight as to not only how the speed limit legislation was passed, with all its additional riders (dmv points, all water bodies subjected to General Boating requirements) but how Bear Islander's predictions could easily pass the Legislature in future sessions.

Interesting corners, in my humble opinion, that some folks may be painting themselves in to! ;)

Skip,

I believe that the real issue is that safety minded people need to fully support the Marine Patrol to enforce all of the existing laws (including the speed limit), and to oppose the legislature and governor's raiding of the MP budget (particularly when the department is really a profit center).

[Skip]

Skip,

I believe that the real issue is that safety minded people need to fully support the Marine Patrol to enforce all of the existing laws (including the speed limit), and to oppose the legislature and governor's raiding of the MP budget (particularly when the department is really a profit center).

But therein lies the rub....

The Legislature will never admit that they are raiding a fund. If they truly view it as a "profit center" as you indicate then they will justify the transfer of funds as excess monies.

It is human nature for them to believe that they are not harming the Marine Patrol mission, that is why they will be easy to convince that the only solution is to layer on more restrictive legislation.

By the way, it was a great pleasure to get to talk to you at length last week. Hope we get to do it again some time in the future!

When I have a few moments more I will opine on while it may be aggravating at times to boat on Winni, or any other waterbody in New Hampshire, the statistics show that boating is a very safe activity in this State. I will use snowmobiling as a comparable.

But that's for another time & another thread as I am still awaiting some additional statistics...:)

[Yankee]

Many lakes and ponds in New Hampshire and around the country have horsepower limits. I have argued on this forum for a HP limit since 2002, nothing new about that.

I have read many times that the only solution to the cowboy mentality is enforcement and education. That there is no way to legislate a solution. But think about the effects of a REALLY low HP limit. A 100 HP or 50 HP limit would change this lake over night. A drastic solution to be sure. However the premise does prove that you CAN legislate serious change.

Your logic is, well, illogical. No, it is nonsencical, and does nothing to prove your premise. For example, how do you propose the local officials test for horsepower? Becasue they would have to test each boat and everytime it goes out. All my vehicle's engines--including my boat and are anything but in a stock configuration. What makes you think that engines mods would suddenly stop? Legislate that.

Still you spew the mantra that a law enacted in the worst economy on 80 years is the sole reason for no speeding tickets, and a "quieter lake". Your twisted logic concludes that no speeding tickets is exclusive to SL legislation?

Lastly, you insist on and continue to insult performance boat owners such as myself by calling us "cowboys". Perhaps the webmaster should step in and remind you of the rules of this forum. I'm sure that you would not find it becoming if "us cowboys" started calling you and others of like opinion "lake geezers" or such other IMO, appropriate term:).

Post script: This whole discussion is stupid. Attempting to have a factual, cogent discussion with you is like trying to push on a rope that's been dangling in the water all summer: you can't and all you do end up with is a slimy hand.

giddy up.

[Pineedles]

But therein lies the rub....

The Legislature will never admit that they are raiding a fund. If they truly view it as a "profit center" as you indicate then they will justify the transfer of funds as excess monies.

It is human nature for them to believe that they are not harming the Marine Patrol mission, that is why they will be easy to convince that the only solution is to layer on more restrictive legislation.
Skip, respectfully, this is why the tea party movement is relevent. We are sick of the way things have always been done, Repubs and Dems. We need a new way to conduct the People's Business.

[Skip]

But therein lies the rub....

The Legislature will never admit that they are raiding a fund. If they truly view it as a "profit center" as you indicate then they will justify the transfer of funds as excess monies.

It is human nature for them to believe that they are not harming the Marine Patrol mission, that is why they will be easy to convince that the only solution is to layer on more restrictive legislation.
Skip, respectfully, this is why the tea party movement is relevent. We are sick of the way things have always been done, Repubs and Dems. We need a new way to conduct the People's Business.

I truly see your point, but don't want this to morph into an unrelated political thread.

But you and others (I hope) see what I have seen go on in the legislature for the past decades I've had to follow it.

Many people ask "how did we get all these convoluted laws and regulations"? I think the speed limit issue, and how it expanded from a single issue on a single lake, into a law that covers all lakes on some issues, one lake on one issue and now interweaves with your Driver's License is a perfect example of legislation gone wild!

Hey, maybe we could get one of the cable channels to pick this up as a reality series: Legislation Gone Wild! I'd think that BI would make the perfect host...that is after he safely returns from orbit....:D

[VtSteve]

Good point.

And while they are considerably smaller than the big Lake, there are a number of bodies of water in New Hampshire that already have horsepower limits. So indeed the lawmakers here in New Hampshire are also quite familiar with that concept.

I am confused about one thing though.

Those that supported the speed limit legislation by and large believe that there has been a positive effect on the Lake since implementation. A positive effect means that if the State believes in that perception then further legislation or restrictions are probably not that imminent. It is the nature of politics.

On the flip side of the coin a number of folks here opposed to speed limit legislation continue to state that the regulation has had no effect, and give numerous examples of how the Lake, in their perception, remains as or more dangerous. A negative effect usually results in the State not rolling back legislation, but in increasing more and more layered legislation to force people into compliance. It is the nature of politics.

Without taking sides in the debate, if I was a legislator with little or no ties to the Lake (like many are) and I viewed this website as an authoritive source of information (to which many here argued when the boating thread was temporarily moderated) I could easily be convinced that additional legislation is warranted. A lobbyist may not have a hard time convincing me of same.

I'm not taking sides in the debate but just offering an insight as to not only how the speed limit legislation was passed, with all its additional riders (dmv points, all water bodies subjected to General Boating requirements) but how Bear Islander's predictions could easily pass the Legislature in future sessions.

Interesting corners, in my humble opinion, that some folks may be painting themselves in to! ;)

Great points Skip, several of which I have made myself. There are far too many power-hungry idiots around that would do this. When ten laws are not being enforced, we must need ten more. It's obviously not hard to convince people that safety must be the motive, so they go along.

If you get enough of these people taking advantage of people that don't really read, or have inquisitive minds, you end up with people like SOTD.

But I do understand your thoughts, very well. I don't have any faith in today's society, it shocks me when they actually do the right thing. But what does shock me is the end nature of the entire SL thing. Some people actually believed the BS about safety and all. They didn't want to participate in discussions about the MP fund being raided, or more SL discussions, because it would rile their Feelings. They don't like controversy, much less confrontation. They'd rather have people rule their lives and hope it doesn't impact them.

I see this sense of inevitability in your comments as well. Don't rock the boat, because they will tip you over. Eventually, the wave comes back to the source. The most active terrorist here is now BI, he has come out of his little island, and hopes to have a grander scheme.

[Skip]

...The most active terrorist here is now BI, he has come out of his little island, and hopes to have a grander scheme...

Respectfully Steve, isn't that a pretty harsh statement?

I've had the pleasure of meeting Bear Islander at a previous forum fest and spending a pleasant amount of time agreeing and disagreeing with him on a number of issues.

I found him to be an extremely bright, interesting and very polite individual. There's a lot of things I might call him, but terrorist is not one of them! ;)

I am sure there are a number of other posters here that I haven't met, including you, that I would find very interesting to spend some time with. Vitabene comes immediately to mind from the recent forumfest.

I just wish we could all tone the rhetoric and name calling down while we discuss these contentious issues.

The reality is we may be building walls with people we never met, who if we had the opportunity we would find are individuals we may have been friends with if given the chance.

I have a lot of friends that look at life completely different than me. We disagree but we don't insult each other when we do. Gosh, if everyone I associated with agreed with me I'd have a petty damned boring life!

Wish we could practice just a wee bit more civility here, on both sides of the equation....:)

[TiltonBB]

Instead of allowing the "privileged few" to use power boats, I hope it will be islanders that get to keep their power boats. After all, we NEED them to get to and from our homes.

However legislation like that will be a long time coming, if ever, and I will not support it.

What I will support is a 300 HP limit for boats manufactured after 2012. Exceptions for commercial boats and law enforcement obviously.

Every "No wake" area brings larger wakes as boats slow down and speed up. Get a "No wake" zone in front of your house, get larger wakes. Is that what people want?

A 300 HP limit?

So your adgenda is clear: Make Winnipesaukee into a pond with canoes and kayaks.

Perhaps you are just that dense. Most cruisers and liveaboards, even with small blocks V8's have 500+ HP. Many have much more. Is it your intention that all of those boats leave the lake?

Marinas like Silver Sands, Spinnaker Cove, MVYC (284 slips occupied by Gilford taxpayers that ask for little if any services) are full of boats with families that spend their weekends and vacations on their boats. Did you want to throw them off the lake or just diminish the value of their docks? What happens to the town of Gilford when they lose in excess of 1/2 million dollars in tax revenue from people that use no services?

What about the other marinas with boats over 30 feet? What do you say to them? Find 10 kayak owners to rent your dock?

What happens to the value of these boat docks? What do you say to all of the owners? "Sucks to be you"?

BI, please answer each specific question. You obviously have an adgenda that has not been well thought out and will do irreparable harm to the lake and the finances of the communities around it. Is that what you really want?

[Bear Islander]

Your logic is, well, illogical. No, it is nonsencical, and does nothing to prove your premise. For example, how do you propose the local officials test for horsepower? Becasue they would have to test each boat and everytime it goes out. All my vehicle's engines--including my boat and are anything but in a stock configuration. What makes you think that engines mods would suddenly stop? Legislate that.

Still you spew the mantra that a law enacted in the worst economy on 80 years is the sole reason for no speeding tickets, and a "quieter lake". Your twisted logic concludes that no speeding tickets is exclusive to SL legislation?

Lastly, you insist on and continue to insult performance boat owners such as myself by calling us "cowboys". Perhaps the webmaster should step in and remind you of the rules of this forum. I'm sure that you would not find it becoming if "us cowboys" started calling you and others of like opinion "lake geezers" or such other IMO, appropriate term:).

Post script: This whole discussion is stupid. Attempting to have a factual, cogent discussion with you is like trying to push on a rope that's been dangling in the water all summer: you can't and all you do end up with is a slimy hand.

giddy up.

No need to test for horsepower, it is printed right on your registration. Yes you could modify your engine or even drop in a different one. Then or course you would be committing a crime when you register your boat with information you know to be incorrect. Even then you could only cheat on the horsepower a little, the Marine Patrol officers are not idiots.

More importantly you are missing the fact that HP limits exist on many New Hampshire lakes already WITHOUT enforcement problems.

Sorry but I have never claimed the speed limit has made a perceptible difference yet. I think the jury is still out on that.

Sorry again, I have never called performance boaters or any other particular boater a cowboy. Some boaters do in fact have a cowboy mentality. Some operate performance boats, one went by my home not long ago. But cowboys can be found in any kind of power boat.

Have you actually read my posts? Or are you to busy railing against them?

[Yankee]

'sigh', no more rope pushing for me. I've got better things to do. Oh, and giddy up. I'll be here long after your gone.

[Bear Islander]

Every "No wake" area brings larger wakes as boats slow down and speed up. Get a "No wake" zone in front of your house, get larger wakes. Is that what people want?

A 300 HP limit?

So your adgenda is clear: Make Winnipesaukee into a pond with canoes and kayaks.

Perhaps you are just that dense. Most cruisers and liveaboards, even with small blocks V8's have 500+ HP. Many have much more. Is it your intention that all of those boats leave the lake?

Marinas like Silver Sands, Spinnaker Cove, MVYC (284 slips occupied by Gilford taxpayers that ask for little if any services) are full of boats with families that spend their weekends and vacations on their boats. Did you want to throw them off the lake or just diminish the value of their docks? What happens to the town of Gilford when they lose in excess of 1/2 million dollars in tax revenue from people that use no services?

What about the other marinas with boats over 30 feet? What do you say to them? Find 10 kayak owners to rent your dock?

What happens to the value of these boat docks? What do you say to all of the owners? "Sucks to be you"?

BI, please answer each specific question. You obviously have an adgenda that has not been well thought out and will do irreparable harm to the lake and the finances of the communities around it. Is that what you really want?

Actually I think I can answer all the questions at once. No boat will have to leave the lake. Perhaps you didn't read my idea closely enough. Only boats manufactured after 2012 would be effected. It would be many years before the number of high HP boats on the lake would drop. After 10 or 20 years there would still be high HP boats around. Yes, over many years some marinas that cater to high HP boats would have to change their slips.

I think my agenda is very well thought out.

[Kracken]

Instead of allowing the "privileged few" to use power boats, I hope it will be islanders that get to keep their power boats. After all, we NEED them to get to and from our homes.

However legislation like that will be a long time coming, if ever, and I will not support it.

What I will support is a 300 HP limit for boats manufactured after 2012. Exceptions for commercial boats and law enforcement obviously.

BI,

I know your a smart guy, your posts are well thought out and solid...I can only assume your account was hacked.

You don't actually believe boat manufactureres would even consider this? Passing a fedral law is the only way a 300hp limit could happen however, such legislation would DESTROY the boating industry. What side would have the deeper pockets?

It will NEVER happen

You need to change your password.

[VtSteve]

Respectfully Steve, isn't that a pretty harsh statement?

I've had the pleasure of meeting Bear Islander at a previous forum fest and spending a pleasant amount of time agreeing and disagreeing with him on a number of issues.

I found him to be an extremely bright, interesting and very polite individual. There's a lot of things I might call him, but terrorist is not one of them! ;)

I am sure there are a number of other posters here that I haven't met, including you, that I would find very interesting to spend some time with. Vitabene comes immediately to mind from the recent forumfest.

I just wish we could all tone the rhetoric and name calling down while we discuss these contentious issues.

The reality is we may be building walls with people we never met, who if we had the opportunity we would find are individuals we may have been friends with if given the chance.

I have a lot of friends that look at life completely different than me. We disagree but we don't insult each other when we do. Gosh, if everyone I associated with agreed with me I'd have a petty damned boring life!

Wish we could practice just a wee bit more civility here, on both sides of the equation....:)

Yeah, maybe it is harsh Skip. And yes, BI is extremely bright, and incredibly interesting. There are some things that just transcend subtle niceties. You know, the things that change things forever? Some things are just pretty darn important, and worth speaking your mind about.

If you think about just this weekend's posts, here's what's transpired.

BI has reiterated his call for a horsepower limit, and what it's focus would be, long term. Nothing to do with speed or anything, but the obvious downsizing of boat size and speed. Whatever he wants.

Skip, you've chimed in with a subtle "observation" that if we keep harping on safety not being changed by these silly laws, more silly laws will be enacted. Just as a point of interest mind you. I don;t necessarily disagree with you.

So while the really dishonest people are out there scurrying around trying to scare people into passing ridiculous laws, BI is very happy that they are playing into his hand by turning the lake into whatever the closest version of Golden Pond they can get to.

This is akin to your neighbor pushing for speed bumps, then no motor vehicles at all, then none in the town. You get my drift. At some point, this ain't friendly anymore. There are no walls left to be built with BI, although he can say he swings one way or another. He's built the wall, and someone has to have the cojones to tear it down. I'm here to say that he and those in his court have gone way too far. I wouldn't want Winni to become a reckless cowboy lake anymore than I'd like to see it a useless lake ....

You can discuss this all you want, since you will never offer up your opinion for fear of offending someone. One day, you may wish you spoke up.

Respectfully yours, of course.

[Bear Islander]

BI,

I know your a smart guy, your posts are well thought out and solid...I can only assume your account was hacked.

You don't actually believe boat manufactureres would even consider this? Passing a fedral law is the only way a 300hp limit could happen however, such legislation would DESTROY the boating industry. What side would have the deeper pockets?

It will NEVER happen

You need to change your password.

It already HAS happened on other lakes and ponds in New Hampshire. How can something that has already happened be impossible?

Winni is large and the lakes that already have HP limits are small. But legally that makes no difference.

Boat manufactuerers would not have a say in this. They can of course lobby against it. But it only requires the NH legislature and the Governors signature to put a HP limit on Winnipesaukee. It also could be accomplished by a Dept. of Safety administrative rule being adopted. Legislation is not even required if you go that route. Most of the HP limits on other lakes were done by administrative rule.

The federal government has nothing to do with this.

Nobody that I know of is actually trying to do this. This is just one man's idea, mine. I very much doubt we will see a HP limit on Winni any time soon. However in the long run I think additional limts of some kind will be coming.

If down the road things get worse instead of better, if we have a couple of more high profile accidents, then legislation could pass.

Or I could be wrong.

[Kracken]

BI,


Lets say NH passes a law that all new boats built after 2012 need to be 300 hp or less? Do you a company like Genmar would stop building 300+ hp boats because they couldn't sell them in NH? Do you think Formula would close their doors? Do you believe Carver would start building kayaks?

[VtSteve]

BI,


Lets say NH passes a law that all new boats built after 2012 need to be 300 hp or less? Do you a company like Genmar would stop building 300+ hp boats because they couldn't sell them in NH? Do you think Formula would close their doors? Do you believe Carver would start building kayaks?

BI is correct. Many bodies of water do have HP limits, quite a few. The boat companies are not impacted directly, but the dealers on the lake would be selling only those boats that are within the limits.

My boat is 22' with a 260 hp stern drive. Not impacted, yet. You'd still be able to buy underpowered small cruisers, probably up to around 26 feet, that have that same engine, or possibly the 5.7 300 hp. You'd have others that opt for the much more efficient Yanmar diesels, most of which are far under 300 hp, on boats that make very large wakes. Most of the bowriders and recreational speed boats fall in that range as well.

[Bear Islander]

BI,


Lets say NH passes a law that all new boats built after 2012 need to be 300 hp or less? Do you a company like Genmar would stop building 300+ hp boats because they couldn't sell them in NH? Do you think Formula would close their doors? Do you believe Carver would start building kayaks?

I don't understand your point. I am not trying to put those companies out of business.

If Winnipesaukee enacted a horsepower limit I think those huge companies would barely notice. They would fight against it probably, but mostly they would be fighting against a trend. The boating industry put up a fight against speed limits, they lost.

The horsepower limits on other lakes have already effected boat sales in those areas.

There is also an up side for the boating industry. Servicing and rebuilding older boats will be a growing business as boat owners try to keep their older, high HP, boats in the water.

[Kracken]

“What I will support is a 300 HP limit for boats manufactured after 2012. Exceptions for commercial boats and law enforcement obviously.”

Bear Islander,

Obviously there is some confusion here. I took this statement as you would endorse and foresee 300hp limit on manufacturers starting in less than 18 months.

Where you actually stating that you would support legislation that requires all vessels manufactured after the 2011 model year to be less than 300 horsepower for use in New Hampshire waterways?

Maybe I did misunderstand you, if so my apologies.

[Bear Islander]

“What I will support is a 300 HP limit for boats manufactured after 2012. Exceptions for commercial boats and law enforcement obviously.”

Bear Islander,

Obviously there is some confusion here. I took this statement as you would endorse and foresee 300hp limit on manufacturers starting in less than 18 months.

Where you actually stating that you would support legislation that requires all vessels manufactured after the 2011 model year to be less than 300 horsepower for use in New Hampshire waterways?

Maybe I did misunderstand you, if so my apologies.

Actually I am only talking about a 300 HP limit on lake Winnipesaukee.

[jmen24]

Here is a link that lists every single public boat access in the state of NH. It also lists any restrictions that may be present at that access location.

http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Outdoor_Recreation/access_sites_table.htm

Take a few minutes and read through the list to see what types of water bodies have HP restrictions. Note that the chart has a column for acreage, that is the total size of the body of water. The only information that is not present is depth, but that can be found here for a cross reference.

http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Fishing/bathy_maps.htm

If you happen to notice a lake or pond on these lists that have a (**) noting additional restrictions. You will have to search for the restrictions by the name of the body of water.

I know BI and myself are well aware of what these bodies of water that have a HP limit have in common, just wanted to make sure everyone else does as well.

[Kracken]

My apologies Bear Islander

I do think it’s still the wrong solution to the problem.

I take from your postings that you are a big picture guy. You are concerned with what the lake will be like 5-10-15 years down the road. No harm with that at all; however there are so many variables involved that it is hard to predict with any certainty.

Personally I don’t think if things are left unchecked that 20 years from now there will be high performance boats and cruisers tied to every dock around the lake. There are too many boundaries to entrance. Big horsepower costs big bucks. Yes there seems to be a lot more high performance boats and cruisers on the lake than there were 20 years ago. But I think we have hit the high water mark on that. As the cost of fuel continues to rise the amount of new big horsepower boats on the lake will drop.

The argument will rage on about the speed limit, some say they lake has changed and they are right. I am on the Broads side of Rattlesnake; a few years ago we use to watch big HP boats fly by at 80 mph+ all day long. When the gas went to $5.00+ that is when the behavior changed.

[VtSteve]

What we keep overlooking here is there was never a speed problem in Skip's town. The speed bumps, for all intents and purposes, are not necessary and pointless.

The neighbor and town, in general, would have been better served having Skip hang out in front of his neighbor's driveway in his cruiser enforcing the traffic in their area.

Get it?

You're correct Ryan, something that should always be at the forefront.

Like most active waterways, Winni has a problem with congestion on weekends, problem boaters, and inexperienced boaters. But even the most experienced skipper has been shown to make a mistake or two.

So while everyone's got a slightly different take on the issues and remedies, there are two main sides taken on the issues(s).

1) There is a general lack of enforcement due to a variety of reasons. The primary reason is the MP budget is simply not enough to provide for enforcement of existing laws. Many here, myself included, think that the lake would be far better served by enforcing the existing laws, and be given the power they need to make the real problem boaters go away.

2) The other side generally thinks that over time, more and more laws and restrictions will be put in place. They view this as progress, since it will have the same impact as "Traffic Calming", a buzzterm developed when people want things to move more slowly.

I might have missed someone here, and it would be easy to do amongst thousands of posts. But In General, I have not heard any support from Side #2 for beefing up the MP, and getting the Legislature to realize what the issues are. Some even admit flat out, that safety is not their concern when proposing these laws. It "might" be a side benefit, but their primary impetus is to, gradually, transform the lake from it's current state of boating, into a more restricted lake where HP boaters, large cruisers,and possibly many other people and boats I haven't thought about, vanish over time.

This is the same type of plan that many areas have successfully implemented on small bodies of water. Small lakes, ponds, reservoirs, etc...I agree with that type of planning. Winni is quite a bit different, in that it's far larger than many of these restricted areas.

But getting back to enforcement and common sense. Is it not more prudent to take a look at existing regulations, and match them up to today's issues? It is the utter irony to have Side#2 point out the need for more laws, because people are breaking existing laws. I can only surmise that they think a ton of regulations and restrictions would eventually make many of their least favorite people/boats go away. That's BI's answer to the lake's problems.

But the issues will remain. Many of the problem boaters are not even in the sights of the restrictions he, and others, propose. With a HP limit, existing speed limit, and whatever else they can think of, you'll still have a problem with boats from 18' and up going the speed limit or well under, endangering other boaters due to arrogance, drinking, inexperience, or a combination of all three.

Bottom line, I don't think any of their proposals match up with any of the issues or problems.

BI basically says So What?

Skip says to avoid any talk of safety issues at all, because the lawmakers and do-gooders will simply come up with more laws and more restrictions, because they aren't smart enough to do anything else.

But he rightfully points out, that this shows people how stupid laws and useless regulations come about in the first place.

Doesn't anyone else see how ridiculous this has become, and that there really are things you can do about it?

[Bear Islander]

I see things differently Steve.

Several years ago some people, starting on Bear Island, perceived a problem. They stood up, got together, raised money, and started working for a speed limit solution. You may think their solution was misguided, but at least they stood up and DID something.

The other side believed standing around talking about the problem, or posting about the need for more education and enforcement etc. was the answer. But it's just talk. There is no money for that.

I am proud that I was part of a movement that actually took a stand and made a difference. Even if it does get us called terrorists.

If someone else has a better idea than speed or horsepower limits, I recommend they stand up and actually do something productive. Because Skip is correct, if speed limits don't do the job then we will be looking for another solution. Probably one you will not like.

Some people will look at a problem, throw up there hands and say it can't be solved. I'm not built that way. It can be solved, it WILL be solved, tho it might take decades. Tough problems require tough solutions. Unpopular solutions.

If, as you say, a 300 HP limit will not solve the problem then we may need to try a 200 HP solution. Or 100 or 50 or 25. Eventually, somewhere along the process, the cowboy mentality will cease to be a problem. After all, a cowboy in a kayak is just not that scary.

[RANGER CANOE CO]

[/U][/B]
Skip, respectfully, this is why the tea party movement is relevent. We are sick of the way things have always been done, Repubs and Dems. We need a new way to conduct the People's Business.Pineedles, respectfully, ITS NOT MY BRAND. Its about getting Gov off our backs. We tax payers, most who dont live anywhere near you paid for a SL study and IT GOT thrown out the window, uncompleted and ignored. Huge waste of MP time and $. And then passed yet another stupid law. Thats not my brand of TEA. Its the PROBLEM..........:patriot:

[Pineedles]

Ranger, I am a bit confused by your reply. Would you please clarify. Thank you.

[Ryan]

Several years ago some people, starting on Bear Island, perceived a problem.

I stopped reading at this buzz word.

I can tell from years of dialogue that you are a smart guy. I don't know a lot about your background, but I would imagine that with travelling into space comes certain risks. I'm pretty sure that you've been over each and every one of them in detail. How can you do that? Because they're documented. They're printed on paper. You can look down at them and see them in black and white. You can make reasonable, informed decisions based on what has been presented to you.

When you start using ambiguous terms like "perceived" and "fear" and other ideas or concepts that are palpable to those with self-serving interests, we diverge.

This debate has been worn thin and I still have yet to find the speed problem that the SL fixed. I have no horse in this race. I do not own a boat that fits your agenda and I'm not a cowboy. I just continue to see through the lies and deception that led to the restriction of other people's enjoyment.

Maybe I just need more money to buy a lobbyist...

[VitaBene]

I see things differently Steve.

Several years ago some people, starting on Bear Island, perceived a problem. They stood up, got together, raised money, and started working for a speed limit solution. You may think their solution was misguided, but at least they stood up and DID something.

The other side believed standing around talking about the problem, or posting about the need for more education and enforcement etc. was the answer. But it's just talk. There is no money for that.

I am proud that I was part of a movement that actually took a stand and made a difference. Even if it does get us called terrorists.

If someone else has a better idea than speed or horsepower limits, I recommend they stand up and actually do something productive. Because Skip is correct, if speed limits don't do the job then we will be looking for another solution. Probably one you will not like.

Some people will look at a problem, throw up there hands and say it can't be solved. I'm not built that way. It can be solved, it WILL be solved, tho it might take decades. Tough problems require tough solutions. Unpopular solutions.

If, as you say, a 300 HP limit will not solve the problem then we may need to try a 200 HP solution. Or 100 or 50 or 25. Eventually, somewhere along the process, the cowboy mentality will cease to be a problem. After all, a cowboy in a kayak is just not that scary.

BI, what good will it do to pass another feel good law when there is no monetary support for enforcing the rules. Just heaping more rules on the MP
to enforce is not going to help- it will hinder.

The problem that I have with your version of problem solving is that it will not work- forcing people to do things via a law will only result in the law abiding doing those things.

Instead of spending $ on lobbyists and getting laws passed that don't need passing, perhaps that same level of energy can and should be spent in Concord telling our legislators that they need to educate and enforce: both can be achieved through a better funded NHMP.

[classic22]

I see things differently Steve.

Several years ago some people, starting on Bear Island, perceived a problem. They stood up, got together, raised money, and started working for a speed limit solution. You may think their solution was misguided, but at least they stood up and DID something.

The other side believed standing around talking about the problem, or posting about the need for more education and enforcement etc. was the answer. But it's just talk. There is no money for that.

I am proud that I was part of a movement that actually took a stand and made a difference. Even if it does get us called terrorists.

If someone else has a better idea than speed or horsepower limits, I recommend they stand up and actually do something productive. Because Skip is correct, if speed limits don't do the job then we will be looking for another solution. Probably one you will not like.


Some people will look at a problem, throw up there hands and say it can't be solved. I'm not built that way. It can be solved, it WILL be solved, tho it might take decades. Tough problems require tough solutions. Unpopular solutions.

If, as you say, a 300 HP limit will not solve the problem then we may need to try a 200 HP solution. Or 100 or 50 or 25. Eventually, somewhere along the process, the cowboy mentality will cease to be a problem. After all, a cowboy in a kayak is just not that scary.

All these "solutions" would be well and good if there WAS a problem, however the statistics show a far different picture. That being said, some of us are standing up and working to "fix" your solutions.

[Bear Islander]

BI, what good will it do to pass another feel good law when there is no monetary support for enforcing the rules. Just heaping more rules on the MP to enforce is not going to help- it will hinder.

The problem that I have with your version of problem solving is that it will not work- forcing people to do things via a law will only result in the law abiding doing those things. ...
.


So I think you are saying that if a HP limit becomes law, people will simply ignore it, and the Marine Patrol will be helpless to enforce it.

You think EVERY owner of an illegal boat will openly flaunt the law and take the risk of their boat being impounded?

That the Marine Patrol will throwing up their collective hands in frustration and admit they can not read a boat registration?

A horsepower limit must be one of the easiest laws to enforce. If the HP on your registration is more than allowed you boat is impounded. See you in court. It will be just that simple. Violations will be rare, mostly by someone that launches a boat without getting the word.

[VtSteve]

I see things differently Steve.

Several years ago some people, starting on Bear Island, perceived a problem. They stood up, got together, raised money, and started working for a speed limit solution. You may think their solution was misguided, but at least they stood up and DID something.

The other side believed standing around talking about the problem, or posting about the need for more education and enforcement etc. was the answer. But it's just talk. There is no money for that.

I am proud that I was part of a movement that actually took a stand and made a difference. Even if it does get us called terrorists.

If someone else has a better idea than speed or horsepower limits, I recommend they stand up and actually do something productive. Because Skip is correct, if speed limits don't do the job then we will be looking for another solution. Probably one you will not like.

Some people will look at a problem, throw up there hands and say it can't be solved. I'm not built that way. It can be solved, it WILL be solved, tho it might take decades. Tough problems require tough solutions. Unpopular solutions.

If, as you say, a 300 HP limit will not solve the problem then we may need to try a 200 HP solution. Or 100 or 50 or 25. Eventually, somewhere along the process, the cowboy mentality will cease to be a problem. After all, a cowboy in a kayak is just not that scary.

It looks to me like I outlined it pretty well BI. The people "perceived" a problem, and started working on a speed limit solution. Yes, they Did do something. It sounds to me like people found out there were fish in the lake, and they all went out and bought tennis rackets?

Can you imagine what your approach would be like on the roadways? There seems to be problems everywhere, aggressive drivers, drunk drivers. So let's make everyone buy a Smart Car.

If I read your post correctly, you outline it as a Cowboy problem. I just can't believe that a man of your obvious intellect, could possibly offer up such half-baked "solutions" that don't even address the nature of the problem. You're proposing a scatter gun approach that isn't even aiming at the target :confused: This kind of thought process doesn't even make it at the Government level (most of the time). I think maybe even a lot of SL supporters had a bewildered look on their faces when reading your last post.

I know one solution that would work just fine. Ban boating entirely. Then you can start working on the mainland.

[Seaplane Pilot]

It looks to me like I outlined it pretty well BI. The people "perceived" a problem, and started working on a speed limit solution. Yes, they Did do something. It sounds to me like people found out there were fish in the lake, and they all went out and bought tennis rackets?

Can you imagine what your approach would be like on the roadways? There seems to be problems everywhere, aggressive drivers, drunk drivers. So let's make everyone buy a Smart Car.

If I read your post correctly, you outline it as a Cowboy problem. I just can't believe that a man of your obvious intellect, could possibly offer up such half-baked "solutions" that don't even address the nature of the problem. You're proposing a scatter gun approach that isn't even aiming at the target :confused: This kind of thought process doesn't even make it at the Government level (most of the time). I think maybe even a lot of SL supporters had a bewildered look on their faces when reading your last post.

I know one solution that would work just fine. Ban boating entirely. Then you can start working on the mainland.

VT, I agree with you 100%. I have another idea...vote every bleeding heart, nanny state liberal out of office whenever possible. Elect people with brains of their own that can see through the smoke and mirror agendas. It reminds me of the famous speech by Howard Beale in the movie Network. "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore".

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechnetwork2.html

Whatever happens, I am not leaving - neither is my boat.

[Skip]

...Stopping every boat that they 'believe' might be exceeding your HP limit will only lead to probable cause issues (Skip) and takes away MP resources from policing the ACTUAL issues on the lake, not those perceived issues...

Please folks, if you are going to drag me into the conversation and throw about legal terms at least know what you are talking about.

You do not need "probable cause" to stop a boat. You need "probable cause" to effect an arrest.

You only need "articulable suspicion" to stop and temporarily detain a boat operator.

There is a significant legal difference between these two legal concepts.

Thank you....:)

[VitaBene]

So I think you are saying that if a HP limit becomes law, people will simply ignore it, and the Marine Patrol will be helpless to enforce it.

You think EVERY owner of an illegal boat will openly flaunt the law and take the risk of their boat being impounded?

That the Marine Patrol will throwing up their collective hands in frustration and admit they can not read a boat registration?

A horsepower limit must be one of the easiest laws to enforce. If the HP on your registration is more than allowed you boat is impounded. See you in court. It will be just that simple. Violations will be rare, mostly by someone that launches a boat without getting the word.

Just do something... even if it's wrong.

The scary thing is that you could traverse the state and ask people if they think 300 HP in a boat is too much (now remember Ma'am your minivan parked there has a little over 170 HP) and the answer by the uninformed would be absolutely. Well maybe if they had headlights...

I saw one of those little hydrofoil type boats out the other day, it was maybe 18', had probably 1/2 the 270HP my 46 MPH BR packs but could easily break the SL by 30 MPH. 300 HP is not about cowboys. Any racer knows it is about weight and HP.

So explain what you are really after. The HP limit does not solve your cowboy problem, because a kayaker that gets run over by a boat going 70 is not going to care that it was an 18' boat with a 135HP engine on it.

I have gone on the record on numerous occasions explaining that I do not own a performance boat nor do I own a boat with greater than 300HP. With all due respect to Pastor Martin Niemöller:

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Performance Boaters
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Performance Boater.

THEN THEY CAME for the 300plusHP boaters,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a 300plusHP boater.

THEN THEY CAME for the Big Cruiser boaters,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Big Cruiser Boater.

THEN THEY CAME for me (the Bowrider Boater)
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

[VtSteve]

I know what you guys mean. BI is laughing out loud at those of us promoting safety, freely acknowledging that the SL he supports was in now way designed to stop the problems on the lake. That would have been an interesting addition to the old SL discussions. To those that supported the SL, how would this have sounded?

"You should support the speed limit, it won't really solve anything, but it's something we can get passed. We know you'll go along with it because it sounds Safe. So even though we lie about our reasons, we're really not bad people, so please don't try to hurt our feelings. We are working on many rules, regulations, and some outright bans that may actually do something in the future.

So don't let all these mean-spirited people dissuade you from supporting whatever law we decide may pass. Some people actually think we care whether or not the MP actually enforces these silly laws we come up with, We Don't. Every time we pass a new law, and the MP cannot or does not enforce it, we'll just come up with another law, and then another, and yet another.

We just can't stop ourselves. Every time a boat wake hits shore, it hurts our feelings. We like our own powerboats, of course. But this is about ridding the lake of other people's boats, not yours. Picture a wave-free lake, with all boats having small, 25 hp engines. Except for the camp boats with their monster wakes, of course.

We don't expect anything to really come of these laws, except fewer people (hopefully) will be boating on Winni after awhile. So keep up the good work Safe Boaters, inspecting vessels, pushing for enforcement, and all that really silly stuff. We're Really doing things, making laws, rubbing elbows with legislators that want votes, really neato stuff. We don't really know what's next on the agenda, but it will likely be something boaters don't like."

[Skip]

...Skip says to avoid any talk of safety issues at all, because the lawmakers and do-gooders will simply come up with more laws and more restrictions, because they aren't smart enough to do anything else...

Well there you go Steve.

I had to sit back for a few hours before I replied to your post.

Let me start by saying you just answered a question you posed to me off line as to why I don't offer my opinion in these threads.

I never, ever said to avoid any talk of safety issues. I never said legislators aren't smart. You have attempted to paraphrase me and in doing so have taken me completely out of context.

Hmm, who have I heard complain loud and clear about the same thing in other threads? Why you, of course.

If you want to have an intelligent and adult debate about this issue, then stick to the legislation. There's an old adage in political debate; debate the issue and not the man. Its also the core concept around Robert's Rules of Order.

It is apparent that there are still too many people related to this subject that cannot stick to the debate but have to degrade themselves into personal attacks of their opponents or their opponent's motivation.

That is why with thousands of registered members here, all of who must have some opinion of this issue, 99% of them refuse to partake in this discussion.

That is why Don had to moderate the boating thread, not because of the subject at hand but because of the handful of posters that couldn't, and still don't, debate like adults.

Here's the bottom line. Whether I support speed limits or not I am completely convinced that they are here to stay. I am completely convinced that the Lake is nowhere near as dangerous as some here continually portray it. And I am completely convinced that speed limits will move to other bodies of water.

There will be no huge new influx of cash to the NHMP. They will continue to do the job that they do with the limited resources they are given. I happen to think they do a damn fine job and as a taxpayer and boater I DO NOT want to see the agency taken over by the State Police, or expanded to such a degree that there's an officer in every nook & cranny of the Lake. I do not need to be babysat by the Government when I am relaxing. If the Lake becomes too crazy for me I will simply boat elsewhere, knowing that my perception of craziness is bliss to the boater that takes my place.

Oh, and I'm bowing out of these threads for good with the final observation:

There are a handful of pro speed limit supporters that act and post like juveniles.

There are a boatload of anti speed limit supporters that act and post like juveniles.

After having followed this debate closely for a number of years I have come to the final conclusion: In my book you win Bear Islander. Not because you are necessarily correct on the subject, but you have taken the high ground with thoughtful, provocative but always on subject debate since day one. You sir are a gentleman and a fantastic debater. I tip my hat to you and give you my blessings as I know you still have a little fight left in you here!

And with that I bid a fond adieu...I'll see everyone over on the adult section of the website! :)

[VtSteve]

Before you run off Skip. Please tell me if I took this post of yours out of context.

On the flip side of the coin a number of folks here opposed to speed limit legislation continue to state that the regulation has had no effect, and give numerous examples of how the Lake, in their perception, remains as or more dangerous. A negative effect usually results in the State not rolling back legislation, but in increasing more and more layered legislation to force people into compliance. It is the nature of politics.

Without taking sides in the debate, if I was a legislator with little or no ties to the Lake (like many are) and I viewed this website as an authoritive source of information (to which many here argued when the boating thread was temporarily moderated) I could easily be convinced that additional legislation is warranted. A lobbyist may not have a hard time convincing me of same.

I'm not taking sides in the debate but just offering an insight as to not only how the speed limit legislation was passed, with all its additional riders (dmv points, all water bodies subjected to General Boating requirements) but how Bear Islander's predictions could easily pass the Legislature in future sessions.

Interesting corners, in my humble opinion, that some folks may be painting themselves in to!



So if the lake is not safer because of one law that didn't address the issues, more laws will be forthcoming. Yes, I guess I did paraphrase you, which is the most logical meaning to be derived from your statement. You certainly don't give Legislators any credit for looking at facts, or even past history. OK, you didn't Say they were stupid. But you've certainly painted them as pretty easy to sway, and not very hard to fool. That's My opinion. While you've not adopted a stance one way or the other, you make a good case as to why no big time enforcement should be requested. Point taken there.

As BI said, this is all a win-win for him in the end, you've simply stated why and what the Legislators would do if the lobbyists lobbied for more. I fully understand what you're saying, I really do. What I was trying to point out, is that there are many SL supporters that didn't think ahead in this manner, and thought the campaign was all on the up and up. All very good things to bring up in public, don't you think?

You brought up an interesting Catch-22 argument in your Painting themselves into corners argument, which is not very far from the truth, actually.

OK BI, Skip says you win. I might as well help you draw up plans for the 50 HP limit, at least that way people can keep small Whalers or something like that. You win.

[TiltonBB]

If, as you say, a 300 HP limit will not solve the problem then we may need to try a 200 HP solution. Or 100 or 50 or 25. Eventually, somewhere along the process, the cowboy mentality will cease to be a problem. After all, a cowboy in a kayak is just not that scary.

Huh??

First, We would have to agree that there is a problem.

In your mind BI, what specifically is the problem?

Second, one would have to agree what causes the problem. Lack of experience, lack of common sense, lack of ability, lack of training?

Some people with a lot of training, a boating license and a lot of experience will just attain the rank of Captain Bonehead. They just were not meant to operate a boat. How will you fix that?

So anyone with over 300 HP is a cowboy? The family of 5 that enjoys the lake on their 32 Carver aft cabin, or any boat that requires more than 300 HP to move it must be operated by a cowboy? (Just curious: Do you think that anyone on route 93 that is not driving a Prius has too much horsepower)?

There are many families that cannot afford lakefront property and buy cabin cruisers in the 30 to 40 foot range so they and their families can have the chance to be on the lake. Would you deny them the opportunity?

PS. You still have not answered my question about the loss of tax revenue to all of the cities and towns. As a matter of fact, you didn't answer any of my questions. (When confronted with specifics you fold up fast)!

[VtSteve]

It's good to give it another rest. I'd love to see the 99% that don't participate give an opinion or ideas if they have any. No rebuttal necessary on my part anymore. Everyone enjoy the rest of the summer.

The only reason I continued with these threads, is because I care. I've seen other areas where the boating life has had the life ripped right from it. These are areas that some would like to copy the rules from, but they are areas that have from 2-8 times the accident rates as well.

I'm far from a cowboy, probably too careful if one can be. I don't like reckless, and I don't like hot dogs on the water. There are many that don't care that much about boating, but love to just look at the lake. I love both, and they coexist just fine. I just hope those that choose not to post read the comments carefully in these forums. I'm no politician, and will never run for office :emb:

Everybody should rethink their boating world and just look at some of the proposals and wishes that are on the table here.

Special message to the adolescents and cowboys on the lake. This is what happens when you don't listen, and cannot control yourself. Your bad manners have not gone unnoticed, anywhere. You probably have several more years left to make complete donkeys out of yourself, and be the arrogant cusses you are. If up to me, you'd be tracked down on the lake, then swept off it. Be thankful that the legislative-happy bunch takes years to deal with anything.

[Bear Islander]

Huh??

First, We would have to agree that there is a problem.

In your mind BI, what specifically is the problem?

Second, one would have to agree what causes the problem. Lack of experience, lack of common sense, lack of ability, lack of training?

Some people with a lot of training, a boating license and a lot of experience will just attain the rank of Captain Bonehead. They just were not meant to operate a boat. How will you fix that?

So anyone with over 300 HP is a cowboy? The family of 5 that enjoys the lake on their 32 Carver aft cabin, or any boat that requires more than 300 HP to move it must be operated by a cowboy? (Just curious: Do you think that anyone on route 93 that is not driving a Prius has too much horsepower)?

There are many families that cannot afford lakefront property and buy cabin cruisers in the 30 to 40 foot range so they and their families can have the chance to be on the lake. Would you deny them the opportunity?

PS. You still have not answered my question about the loss of tax revenue to all of the cities and towns. As a matter of fact, you didn't answer any of my questions. (When confronted with specifics you fold up fast)!

I answered all your questions in post #84. The fact that you do not like or will not accept my answers, does not mean I have not made them.

I don't see any significant loss of revenues to the towns. Taxes are on real estate. Marinas are not going to go out of business. They might have to alter a few slips now and then to convert from large boats to small. All this will take place over many years. How does that involve a crippling tax loss? Please be specific or give an example.

[Bear Islander]

...

There are many families that cannot afford lakefront property and buy cabin cruisers in the 30 to 40 foot range so they and their families can have the chance to be on the lake. Would you deny them the opportunity? ...


I don't know what a 40 foot cabin cruiser costs but I bet it is MORE than a modest waterfront property. 35 Bear Island is for sale and they are only asking $199k. It needs work but has a fantastic view of the mountains.

I also don't know what a slip costs for one of those things, 5k or 6k per year? But I bet that big slip will cost more than taxes plus utilities for an island home.

Even if you add a new bow rider and valet service an island home is cheaper.




http://www.newenglandmoves.com/real-estate/property/35-bear-island-meredith-nh-03253/single-family-home/mls-2790386/160362?pos=35&search=05f4e240ad3007e32d0362585df25a213394079e

[Woodsy]

BI...

Your a bit off base with your numbers! At first glance a $200K island property that needs work might seem like a bargain... especially to someone who can plunk down that much for a 6 minute weightless joyride. However, look at the true costs...

$200,000 for the island property
$50,000 in work (looks like septic might be an issue according to your link)
$2,500+ taxes yearly (based on $12.54 per 1000 tax rate) likely to increase
$15,000 (modest used bowrider in 20' range)
$2,500 (yearly valet fee for 20' boat)

$270,000 first year total with a minimum of $5000 recurring expenses (you get intrest write off on mortgage & prop taxes)

***************

$150,000 for 3-4 year old 38' cruiser ( i have seen them alot cheaper but figured I should aim high for the sake of argument)
$4,000 - Slip rental (Mountain View or equiv)

$154,000 first year total with $4000 recurring expenses. (you get intrest write off on boat loan)

You could purchase a slip @ Mountain View for $60,000-70,000 to secure your lake access, however with a rental fee of only 4,000 - 5,000 it will take 15 plus years to pay for itself... and you will be paying a yearly fee to the MVYC association....

Its still way way cheaper to go cabin cruiser than island property.... pros and cons to both.

Woodsy

[Bear Islander]

OK Woodsy

I will accept your figures. But you need to add maintainace costs and winter storage.

The big difference is that after 10 or 20 years the island home will be worth a lot more and the boat will be worth very little.

I do think they are in the same ballpark.

[MAXUM]

I don't know what a 40 foot cabin cruiser costs but I bet it is MORE than a modest waterfront property. 35 Bear Island is for sale and they are only asking $199k. It needs work but has a fantastic view of the mountains.

I also don't know what a slip costs for one of those things, 5k or 6k per year? But I bet that big slip will cost more than taxes plus utilities for an island home.

Even if you add a new bow rider and valet service an island home is cheaper.




http://www.newenglandmoves.com/real-estate/property/35-bear-island-meredith-nh-03253/single-family-home/mls-2790386/160362?pos=35&search=05f4e240ad3007e32d0362585df25a213394079e

For what it's worth, I've looked at that property and essentially the price reflects the lot, not the building which pretty much needs a wrecking ball taken to it. Retrofitting that place is not worth the effort. So now you're out the cost of demolition and removal, site work and at least a septic to get something reasonably usable. Granted how much is necessary to fix the place up is directly related to how elaborate a place you want, but even erecting a simple camp will push the price tag in my estimation out close to 300K and hit the tax bill pretty hard.

In the end it's worth what somebody is willing to pay for it, but I'd rather invest in property that will be more likely to gain value versus a boat that is guaranteed to loose value. Total cost of ownership is a wash in my book, both have similar reoccurring costs.

[TiltonBB]

OK Woodsy

I will accept your figures. But you need to add maintainace costs and winter storage.

The big difference is that after 10 or 20 years the island home will be worth a lot more and the boat will be worth very little.

I do think they are in the same ballpark.

How do you know that the lot or house will be worth more in 10 or 20 years. Look at the last 5 years and see where we are going.

You can buy used cabin cruisers in the 35 foot range for under $100,000. If you own a slip in a marina your annual costs (fees and taxes) will be about $2,500. Great deal for those that can't afford a waterfront home.

As for your contention that a vessel would be worth substantially less in a few years: I owned a 35 foot cabin cruser on this lake that I purchased in 1996. I sold it in 2003 for more than I paid for it. Don't be so sure of yourself!

I know one couple that owns a 38 foot boat and live aboard it for the summer. In the winter they rent a condo in the area for $500 per month. Cheap living and they are right on the lake. Would you deprive them of this opportunity, or just tell them that they can't ever get a new boat and if they decide to sell their slip it will be worth 1/4 of what they paid because of a horsepower regulation?

In reference to your previous posts: The marinas will have to make adjustments? MVYC has 284 slips with individual owners. What adjustments do you make to a 44 foot slip?

You obviously have many uninformed opinions that scare people. Uninformed people get to vote. That is scary!

I will take a step on the wild side and assume that your Winnipesaukee home came about as a result of family money or inheritance. There is no way that someone whose thinking is as disfunctional as yours has been gainfully employed and earned enough money himself to own a second home on Winnipesaukee.

[Bear Islander]

I will take a step on the wild side and assume that your Winnipesaukee home came about as a result of family money or inheritance. There is no way that someone whose thinking is as disfunctional as yours has been gainfully employed and earned enough money himself to own a second home on Winnipesaukee.

Thank you... That really made me laugh out loud. My first inclination was to ignore it but then I figured... what the heck, I'll give you a little of my bio.

I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth into a three decker in Boston. Just a few blocks from the projects. My father managed a hardware store so the day I was 14 I applied for working papers to work with him for 85 cents an hour. After he died I drove a cab nights to put myself through 6 years of college. It took 10 years to pay off my student loans. Since Jr. high there was only one place I wanted to work. After college I got a job there as a temp. 34 years later I own the company.

It was all a lot of fun. I'd do it again in a heartbeat. I did inherit plenty from my family, just not any money.

[MAXUM]

Thank you... That really made me laugh out loud. My first inclination was to ignore it but then I figured... what the heck, I'll give you a little of my bio.

I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth into a three decker in Boston. Just a few blocks from the projects. My father managed a hardware store so the day I was 14 I applied for working papers to work with him for 85 cents an hour. After he died I drove a cab nights to put myself through 6 years of college. It took 10 years to pay off my student loans. Since Jr. high there was only one place I wanted to work. After college I got a job there as a temp. 34 years later I own the company.

It was all a lot of fun. I'd do it again in a heartbeat. I did inherit plenty from my family, just not any money.

BI- that's a great story. All opinion differences aside, what you've done is quite remarkable and a great example of living the American dream.

[Woodsy]

OK Woodsy

I will accept your figures. But you need to add maintainace costs and winter storage.

The big difference is that after 10 or 20 years the island home will be worth a lot more and the boat will be worth very little.

I do think they are in the same ballpark.

BI...

No question the island home is the better option... it will appreciate in value over time while the boat will depreciate. However, you have winter storage & maintenance for both boats, and while not equal, there isnt that much disparity. also the buy in is ALOT less for the boat/slip than island property. You will need at least $20,000 to put down on the island property to get financed nowadays, especially considering its seasonal nature. This doesnt take into account how your going to afford the $10,000 - $15,000 septic system that the property needs....

The buy in for the boat requires a much smaller downpayment, and the money needed to rent the slip....


Woodsy

PS: While we differ on opinions BI, you are the embodiment of the American Dream!

[Mee-n-Mac]

The single word answer to why we have a speed limit is fear. The fear of a camp director to send out his boats. The fear of a kayaker to come to this lake. The fear of an elderly couple to leave their island home on a weekend. That last one is VERY real. The fear of a parent to let their child take out a boat or canoe. The fear that our beautiful natural resource is being taken over by a small minority of "get out of my way" boaters.

Not to drag out an old post but BI is correct in that it was "fear" that drove the SL bill. But what was it that the above people were afraid of ? If it's getting runover by a too fast boat then the SL may be a solution. If it's some "cowboy behavior" (?) then I don't see it getting addressed by the SL. The question should be was this fear justified in the 1'st place and then whether a SL truthfully addresses it. That's why people cite the various stats as to accidents and boat speeds. To believe the SL will address the fear issue is to believe that an incredibly small number of "fast" boaters are causing all the problems listed. It's akin to having the Dalton gang in town and causing all the ruckus. Moreover it ignores the ill done to all the responsible people who aren't causing problems when boating in excess of the now posted SL. I prefer the sniper rifle to the shotgun for these problems. Go after the specific people who are causing the problems. Leave to non-problem people alone. I don't see this as being any harder or more costly to do than passing and enforcing a SL law.

Just an analogy for people to think about ... We all see moronic and dangerous driving while on the roads. It's not restricted to any class or type of vehicle, nor any age or gender or other type of driver, that I can see. Is the answer to reduce speeds, say on the highway, to some low limit in hopes that the more fleet of these drivers would go elsewhere ? I doubt people would allow that ... as it would actually affect them as well as the fast, moronic drivers ! And it only deters (at best) the "fast" moronic drivers, leaving the "slow" moronic drivers still on the road to cause accidents and generally sow dissatisfaction and aggrevation. I would agitate for a more comprehensive and fairer solution myself.

And now to the anti-SL people ... I continue with the above analogy. I note the roads we all drive on have some SL. We can argue whether it's the proper limit but arguing that there shouldn't be any limits; anywhere, anytime is a losing argument. You'd have been much better off (IMO) settling for limit(s) that have some demonstrable basis as being both safe and reasonable. You left open the possibility that some innocent kayaker, just sitting there in the Broads, could possibly be run over by a non CaptB boater just because he couldn't see and take action in time due to his (truely) excessive speed. Logic and reason rarely win the day in politics but you have a stronger position to argue from with them on your side. You needed to show, both in theory and in practice, just where the above fear is and isn't justified.

[pm203]

Thank you... That really made me laugh out loud. My first inclination was to ignore it but then I figured... what the heck, I'll give you a little of my bio.

I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth into a three decker in Boston. Just a few blocks from the projects. My father managed a hardware store so the day I was 14 I applied for working papers to work with him for 85 cents an hour. After he died I drove a cab nights to put myself through 6 years of college. It took 10 years to pay off my student loans. Since Jr. high there was only one place I wanted to work. After college I got a job there as a temp. 34 years later I own the company.

It was all a lot of fun. I'd do it again in a heartbeat. I did inherit plenty from my family, just not any money.

Too bad you didn't learn to get along with others. I find your views very disturbing.

[RTTOOL]

It already HAS happened on other lakes and ponds in New Hampshire. How can something that has already happened be impossible?

Winni is large and the lakes that already have HP limits are small. But legally that makes no difference.

Boat manufacturers would not have a say in this. They can of course lobby against it. But it only requires the NH legislature and the Governors signature to put a HP limit on Winnipesaukee. It also could be accomplished by a Dept. of Safety administrative rule being adopted. Legislation is not even required if you go that route. Most of the HP limits on other lakes were done by administrative rule.

The federal government has nothing to do with this.

Nobody that I know of is actually trying to do this. This is just one man's idea, mine. I very much doubt we will see a HP limit on Winni any time soon. However in the long run I think additional limts of some kind will be coming.

If down the road things get worse instead of better, if we have a couple of more high profile accidents, then legislation could pass.

Or I could be wrong.

Maybe you and governor can run the world:emb::emb::emb:

[RANGER CANOE CO]

VT, I agree with you 100%. I have another idea...vote every bleeding heart, nanny state liberal out of office whenever possible. Elect people with brains of their own that can see through the smoke and mirror agendas. It reminds me of the famous speech by Howard Beale in the movie Network. "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore".

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechnetwork2.html

Whatever happens, I am not leaving - neither is my boat.Primary day, so, do your home work in your districts and remove them. :liplick: Law makers that pass unfounded redundent laws that take way your rights. That dont even own a boat or boat on the lake and side with non full time residents.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Primary day, so, do your home work in your districts and remove them. :liplick: Law makers that pass unfounded redundent laws that take way your rights. That dont even own a boat or boat on the lake and side with non full time residents.

Do it - get out and vote for people with brains. I know where my votes are going today.

[winni83]

I am not at all sure that the proponents of the Speed Limit Law and laws and regulations of a similar ilk are mostly liberals or that the opponents of such items are mostly conservatives. I, for one, am a moderate Democrat, and I guess that would make me a liberal, but I have always been opposed to such items and to the mentality which goes along with supporting these kinds of laws and regulations. I think there are ample opportunities properly to categorize the proponents of such laws and regulations without assigning political labels. I would hope that the opposition to these kinds of laws and regulations would transcend party or political labels.

[Seaplane Pilot]

For one, Rep. James Pilliod is a Republican and was a big supporter of speed limits. I am happy to report that I cast a vote against him (or did not cast a vote in favor of him) about 1 hour ago.

[Skip]

For one, Rep. James Pilliod is a Republican and was a big supporter of speed limits. I am happy to report that I cast a vote against him (or did not cast a vote in favor of him) about 1 hour ago.

Excellent example of a voter doing his homework.

In Pilliod's race there are 8 Republicans vying for 7 spots on the ballot for Republicans in the General Election in November in the Town of Belmont. By not voting for Pilliod you greaten the chances that he does not survive the primary and hence does not appear on the ballot in November.

Hopefully many more voters like SP will scutinize their ballots in their respective communities as well!

[sunset on the dock]

For one, Rep. James Pilliod is a Republican and was a big supporter of speed limits. I am happy to report that I cast a vote against him (or did not cast a vote in favor of him) about 1 hour ago.
But again...he is a Republican, one of many supporting the SL. This is why those who project a huge Republican sweep in November will somehow enable the speed limit to be overturned are delusional. A speed limit may be the most overwhelming issue in the state to some on this forum but believe me it is not to most people in the state. And even if it were, with 9/10 people supporting the SL petition, an 80% agreement among polled voters that a SL was necessary, large bipartisan support in both houses...well you get the picture. Likewise, the people of the state will never allow the Broads to be exempted. People who use this area for fishing, sailing, or otherwise getting from one place to another will never allow these loud and fast behemoths to dominate and marginalize the families that want to boat there.

I have heard of proposals being discussed where boat registration fees will be based on HP, not length ... $1 per HP and that there will be a small fee to register kayaks and canoes. Does anyone have any more info on this?

[Shreddy]

But again...he is a Republican, one of many supporting the SL. This is why those who project a huge Republican sweep in November will somehow enable the speed limit to be overturned are delusional. A speed limit may be the most overwhelming issue in the state to some on this forum but believe me it is not to most people in the state. And even if it were, with 9/10 people supporting the SL petition, an 80% agreement among polled voters that a SL was necessary, large bipartisan support in both houses...well you get the picture. Likewise, the people of the state will never allow the Broads to be exempted. People who use this area for fishing, sailing, or otherwise getting from one place to another will never allow these loud and fast behemoths to dominate and marginalize the families that want to boat there.

I have heard of proposals being discussed where boat registration fees will be based on HP, not length ... $1 per HP and that there will be a small fee to register kayaks and canoes. Does anyone have any more info on this?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :laugh::laugh::laugh: You got it wrong, they're charging a flat registration fee for any boat with thru-hull exhaust of $5,000 per year.

[XCR-700]

People who use this area for fishing, sailing, or otherwise getting from one place to another will never allow these loud and fast behemoths to dominate and marginalize the families that want to boat there.

Hummm, Cant say that I have EVER seen anything like that going on Winnipesaukee, sure your not talking about somewhere else???

As for fast and loud, seems to me the most common fast boats are the fisherman in bassboats and the loudest are the classics that have old school marine engines with wide open above the waterline exhaust with no mufflers.

And to be 100% honest, I have NEVER had a problem with either!

As for the "behemoths" well my only observation has been if they can afford to pay for the gas, all the power to them,,, There not to my liking, and I dont see myself ever having a 30' plus Baja, Fountain, Formula, etc, but I dont begrudge anyone that does.

Regulating boats because based on appearance is just about as mindless as the incompetents that want to restrict guns because they look like “black military” rifles.

Fact is that my tiny CVX and most bassboats will easily blow past 75 MPH and are far more dangerous to the operator, the passengers and any other boat near them at that speed when compared to any of the “behemoths” you mention. And those same “behemoths” almost always have modern marine exhausts that include mufflers to ensure that they meet sound control standards, where as the classics that I could not ever think of banning most often have no such sound dampening devices nor a way to retrofit them.

The same mentality has been applied to gun control over the years, where a semi-auto AR-15 has been demonized even though its anemic .223 pales by comparison to any modern hunting rifle.

It’s sad to see the vocal opinionated self-absorbed and omniscient few lead the rest of the sheep to slaughter.

I for one am so happy I was born early enough to have seen the pinnacle of our society, because unless common sense is restored soon the future looks bleak and uncharacteristically un-American, where rules and laws are written to control every facet of our lives and individual choice and freedom are mere meaningless words of our ancestors,,,

[John A. Birdsall]

What I would like to know is how many speeding tickets on the lake were handed out, and what happened in court. (if it got there)

To me that would say what the difference in speed limit law has done.
With seeing people doing in excess of the speed limit almost all the time I do not concern myself. But those that are doing it within 150' that is what bothers me. I seen the mp GET buzzed by a jet ski with about 40' distance going perhaps full bore. The MP got the man, but what happened in court or how much of a fine did he pay?

[Acres per Second]

Fact is that my tiny CVX and most bassboats will easily blow past 75 MPH and are far more dangerous to the operator, the passengers and any other boat near them at that speed when compared to any of the “behemoths” you mention.
Some interesting developments have appeared, as there are now 74 defendants at the Candle (http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?A=3605&Q=440636) Wood (http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/Lake-crash-lawsuit-names-74-defendants-540522.php) Lake (http://www.newcanaannewsonline.com/news/article/Candlewood-Lake-boat-accident-What-they-saw-221369.php) crash last year. Three articles are above—the last being the better summary.

Regarding your view of how "harmless" bass boats are (and the differences between "Civil" and "Criminal" law), it would make for good discussions as a new thread somewhere.

It’s sad to see the vocal opinionated self-absorbed and omniscient few lead the rest of the sheep to slaughter.

Among those who are "the self-absorbed and omniscient" one boater—convicted of manslaughter—attempted later to get a dial-tone at 90-MPH on the Interstate.
:rolleye1:

In Pilliod's race there are 8 Republicans vying for 7 spots on the ballot for Republicans in the General Election in November in the Town of Belmont. By not voting for Pilliod you greaten the chances that he does not survive the primary and hence does not appear on the ballot in November. Hopefully many more voters like SP will scutinize their ballots in their respective communities as well!

Excellent example of a voter doing his homework.
I for one am so happy I was born early enough to have seen the pinnacle of our society.
Years ago, we just "voted": the above is "Gaming the System", IMHO.

What I would like to know is how many speeding tickets on the lake were handed out, and what happened in court. (if it got there)

To me that would say what the difference in speed limit law has done.
With seeing people doing in excess of the speed limit almost all the time I do not concern myself. But those that are doing it within 150' that is what bothers me. I seen the mp GET buzzed by a jet ski with about 40' distance going perhaps full bore. The MP got the man, but what happened in court or how much of a fine did he pay?

Because the Legislature is skilled at raiding NHMP resources, the difference may never be measureable. The only measure I can envision is by the reduction of one-boat crashes involving "the usual suspects".

[Ryan]

Candlewood Lake: The Facts
Candlewood Lake Length: 16 miles
Candlewood Lake Width: 500 feet - 3.2 miles
Maximum Depth: Between 80-90 feet
Average Depth: 40 feet
Shore Line Length: 85-109 miles depending on the measure/criteria
Shore Line as Radius controlled by CL&P: 60+ miles
Surface Area: 8.4 Square Miles
Acres: 5,400
Elevation: 400+ feet
Candlewood Lake Watershed Area: 25,000 miles

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: Daytime Speed Limit: 45 mph :eek::eek::eek::eek:

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: Night-time Speed Limit: 25mph :eek::eek::eek::eek:

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: Speed Limit within 100ft of Shore, Boats, Docks, etc: 6 mph :eek::eek::eek::eek:

[XCR-700]

Well how about a trip out the mouth of the Merrimack river on a modestly quiet weekend day,,,

Operating distance at speed from the hard rock jetty is often under 50’ and separation from other boaters operating at speed sometimes less than that, and as for what “operating speed” is, well it ranges from anchored/free drifting to as fast as they can go without loosing control and I have never seen an accident myself there nor seen any MP/CG/HM ticketing anyone, EVER!

Not that I would like to see that kind of madness on Winnipesaukee, but it sure makes me wonder how anyone ever survived without the 150' boat separation/distance from shore and 50 MPH speed limits,,,

And there are far busier inlets than this one out there,,,

So I say relevant, but keep things in perspective,,,

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-10/1219285/MerrimackRiver.JPG


Candlewood Lake: The Facts
Candlewood Lake Length: 16 miles
Candlewood Lake Width: 500 feet - 3.2 miles
Maximum Depth: Between 80-90 feet
Average Depth: 40 feet
Shore Line Length: 85-109 miles depending on the measure/criteria
Shore Line as Radius controlled by CL&P: 60+ miles
Surface Area: 8.4 Square Miles
Acres: 5,400
Elevation: 400+ feet
Candlewood Lake Watershed Area: 25,000 miles

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: Daytime Speed Limit: 45 mph :eek::eek::eek::eek:

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: Night-time Speed Limit: 25mph :eek::eek::eek::eek:

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: Speed Limit within 100ft of Shore, Boats, Docks, etc: 6 mph :eek::eek::eek::eek:

[Acres per Second]

Well how about a trip out the mouth of the Merrimack river on a modestly quiet weekend day...I have never seen an accident myself there nor seen any MP/CG/HM ticketing anyone, EVER...
Not that I would like to see that kind of madness on Winnipesaukee, but it sure makes me wonder how anyone ever survived without the 150' boat separation/distance from shore and 50 MPH speed limits,,,So I say relevant, but keep things in perspective,,,
Thank you for seeing it my way. :) But, like "the nocturnal-animals" mentioned elsewhere here, you're not going to see nocturnal accidents during the daytime. ;)

The following example is taken from the night-time experience of five boaters: It's at night that waterways would appear entirely the same—regardless of their size or geography.

Merrimack Inlet is certainly different: there are many more islands and many narrow passages around Lake Winnipesaukee.

Our "150-foot barrier" keeps boaters away from most rocky shorelines.

Distanced from spar buoys, that "150-feet" keeps boaters away from the vast majority of the hazards that are remaining.

Tubers and waterskiers are prevented from striking one another—while passing—by virtue of their combined tow-lengths equalling less than 150-feet. For Lake Winnipesaukee, I see the concept as ingenious, and I'd not want the 150-foot law to be ignored by visitors—nor overturned by New Hampshire's "experts in safe boating".

Boaters who visit here from other lakes and salt water need to be aware that Lake Winnipesaukee is a location that is highly recreational.

(Some might substitute "highly" with the word: "extremely"!) :eek2:

In the case of the Candlewood Lake collision, what follow are some comments—the first two being those from "oversize" boaters, who are generally sympathetic to the Formula 24 that was pierced through the bow by the fast-running bass boat—the "privileged-vessel".

The Formula 24 is further described here, as "a speedboat":

"24 Formula that the guy had for less than a month hit a triton bass boat at high speed. Driver and passenger in Formula died and a 3rd passenger (the firefighter) is in critical condition. Both Bass boat guys are OK. Steering wheel from Formula was found in the back seat."

PLEASE don't run at speed in the dark, folks. These accidents are far too common.

More comments—now from the Media—following the collision. Do any of these sound familiar? :confused:

"For too long, the lake has been like the Wild West, not patrolled or supervised, and for too long lake safety has been about finger-pointing, excuses and confusion,"

"Layton was at the wheel, located on the right side of the Formula, and Wanat was in the left-side passenger seat. Sullivan was sitting behind Wanat, witnesses said."

"As they left the restaurant dock, Layton gunned the 365-horsepower motor, and the Formula sped away through the "no wake" zone there at an estimated 35 miles per hour."

"The speedboat was going even faster as it roared past the Candlewood Lake Club, where retired Bethel police officer Ray Pacheco...on a security detail."

"I looked at my employee and said, 'Damn, that boat is hauling,' " Pacheco told EnCon police.

"Further up the lake, at Orchard Point, bass fisherman Richard Tomasini was alone in his boat when he heard a "loud speedboat" approaching."

"The vessel was traveling '45 to 50 knots' when it went past."

"Seconds later, the sound of crunching fiberglass, followed by the whine of a boat's propeller spinning out of the water, reached his ears."

"Back at the Candlewood Lake Club, Pacheco heard a sound 'like a shotgun bang.'"

"In her bedroom, Rasor described the noise as 'a large boom.'"

"The bass boat hit the Formula almost head on, its prow slicing into the speedboat and ripping through the hull directly into the cockpit area."

"The speedboat's momentum carried both vessels north another 150 feet, according to the DEP's Boating Accident Reconstruction Unit. The impact was so great that a mirror image of a Gatorade bottle label was imprinted into the fabric of Layton's seat."

"[The Formula's] Layton likely died instantly. [The Formula's] Wanat was also killed and thrown overboard."

"[The Formula's] Sullivan, sitting in the rear, remained in the boat but was critically injured and covered by wreckage."

"...10 months to the day after the accident, Environmental Conservation police issued their report on the crash."

"The investigation concluded that the [Formula] operated by Mr. Layton failed to yield to the vessel as required by the federal rules of navigation,"

"Investigators found no indications that [the bass-boaters] had been drinking, but there were 19 empty beer cans in the Formula. [The Formula of] Layton's blood alcohol level was 0.19, more than twice the legal limit for operation of a car or boat."

"The speedboat's [The Formula] throttle was also fully opened, meaning the engine was running at maximum speed."

"Contributing factors, DEP said, were the time of day, alcohol, [B]and excessive speed."

Haven't we seen this before? :eek:


:rolleye1:

[XCR-700]

Oh sorry if you misunderstood in any way, I neither support the 150’ rule nor the speed limits, nor most of the “well thought out” restrictions.

As for the mouth of the Merrimack, well it can get a bit hairy, but I have NEVER had a problem, nor have most of the folks who travel through there,,,

Some distance buffer seams reasonable, but not 150’ you could land an aircraft with that much buffer. If you need 150' buffer to safely operate your boat, then I cant help but wonder if you are really capable of safely operating it. And speed limits in my mind are the point where you cannot safely operate the particular vessel, but I have no intention of arguing any of this, it is clearly a futile diatribe.

We can agree to disagree and go to neutral corners and act like adults. My corner will be the leave people alone to enjoy the world and then if their actions result in some negative impact to someone/something then hold them accountable as reasonable. Your corner can be the wrap the world in bubble warp and restrict the masses so much that there no negative impact to anyone or anything.

Sometimes the pen is mightier than the sword and sometimes the barbarians conquer the weak,,, and that pendulum swings back and forth. For the moment the pen rules, but very soon the barbarians will be mounted for battle,,,

Please don’t waste any time responding to me or quoting me, it really is not worth the space on the server and I’m not interested in thrashing this out just to fuel the flames.

There is fuel to be burned and I hope to spend more time exercising my tachometer than typing so I’m more than done on this thread,,,

Happy weekend all, and start thinking snow, sledding season is now just weeks away and I am counting the days until I can lay down a cloud of 2 stroke fun,,,

[VtSteve]

Thank you for seeing it my way. :) But, like "the nocturnal-animals" mentioned elsewhere here, you're not going to see nocturnal accidents during the daytime. ;)

The following example is taken from the night-time experience of five boaters: It's at night that waterways would appear entirely the same—regardless of their size or geography.

Merrimack Inlet is certainly different: there are many more islands and many narrow passages around Lake Winnipesaukee.

Our "150-foot barrier" keeps boaters away from most rocky shorelines.

Distanced from spar buoys, that "150-feet" keeps boaters away from the vast majority of the hazards that are remaining.

Tubers and waterskiers are prevented from striking one another—while passing—by virtue of their combined tow-lengths equalling less than 150-feet. For Lake Winnipesaukee, I see the concept as ingenious, and I'd not want the 150-foot law to be ignored by visitors—nor overturned by New Hampshire's "experts in safe boating".

Boaters who visit here from other lakes and salt water need to be aware that Lake Winnipesaukee is a location that is highly recreational.

(Some might substitute "highly" with the word: "extremely"!) :eek2:

In the case of the Candlewood Lake collision, what follow are some comments—the first two being those from "oversize" boaters, who are generally sympathetic to the Formula 24 that was pierced through the bow by the fast-running bass boat—the "privileged-vessel".

The Formula 24 is further described here, as "a speedboat":
More comments—now from the Media—following the collision. Do any of these sound familiar? :confused:



Haven't we seen this before? :eek:


:rolleye1:

We certainly have, all over the country. In fact, some of us have pointed it out many, many times. What you've just pointed out, at least twice here alone, verifies that you concur with many things I've said, many times.

You have a lake, which has a speed limit, lesser at night than in daytime. At least one boat broke the night time speed limit, at least one, and the drive of the give away boat was intoxicated, to say the least. It's happened many times in many lakes, and in boats ranging from 16' outboards to huge speedboats to cruisers.

You "Think" (hard to believe), that this makes speed limits an issue, or go fast boats an issue. It doesn't. Anyone with the intelligence of an avocado can read the facts you portray, and come up with a reasonable explanation as to what needs to be done to prevent it.

Nope, MOT, it has nothing to do with "oversized boats", not even close. Even the Candlewood people knew the lake had not been patrolled, it's laws not enforced, you even quoted that. But in your zest to make a point, you basically proved my point. Yet another accident caused by a drunken driver, and even another that failed to see a collission that could have been prevented. AND the Formula was speeding recklessly in a No Wake Zone. :eek:

Do you even read what you post?

[VitaBene]

Tubers and waterskiers are prevented from striking one another—while passing—by virtue of their combined tow-lengths equalling less than 150-feet. For Lake Winnipesaukee, I see the concept as ingenious, and I'd not want the 150-foot law to be ignored by visitors—nor overturned by New Hampshire's "experts in safe boating".

I am going on the record that SBONH is an ardent supporter of New Hampshire's Safe Passage law (AKA 150' rule) and the NH Marine Patrol's enforcement of said law.

It is disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise.

[Acres per Second]

I am going on the record that SBONH is an ardent supporter of New Hampshire's Safe Passage law (AKA 150' rule) and the NH Marine Patrol's enforcement of said law. It is disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise.
You are hereby, "recorded on the record". :rolleye1:

---------------------------

Is SBONH now claiming to be experts in safe boating? :eek:

By any chance, would that be individually—or collectively? :eek2:

---------------------------

Your gripe isn't with me, anyway. :confused:

This is where your misdirection came from:

I neither support the 150’ rule nor the speed limits, nor most of the “well thought out” restrictions.
You probably also disagree with his assessment of SBONH members: :rolleye2:

For the moment the pen rules, but very soon the barbarians will be mounted for battle,,,


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_qUFDMUpk9jE/SYojP98qbDI/AAAAAAAAPRc/zD0XRNmcRwc/s400/the-four-horsemen-of-the-apocalypse.jpg

http://media.gamespy.com/columns/image/article/649/649167/planetfargo-barbarians-at-the-gates-20050908031519619.jpg
Nice imagery! :rolleye1:

---------------------------

The only thing that surprised me was that the Formula took a fatal hit from a Bassboat. (And that the two in the Bassboat survived the collision even though they were pushed backwards for such a great distance by the impact). :eek2:


But any of us could have predicted this crash's fatal outcome. :(

[Bearislandmoose]

How has the lake changed? Since I am currently back in the discussion, I should weigh in on this:
I don't think there are any of you who have been on this lake as long and have spent as much time boating on it who will not instantly agree that the past two summers have been the most enjoyable for boating and other recreational activities that we have seen for maybe 20 years. While there are still enough cigarette boats to make it clear that nobody has been chased from the lake by the SL, there is now enough civility to make all boaters feel welcomed and safe. Anyone who says differently is either emotionally pre-pubescent or blind, or both, in my humble opinion.
The status quo is now simply heavenly. We have people on this forum (including the supreme "safe" boater) boasting about how the SL has not cramped their style one bit, and we have kayakers boasting about how they can finally enjoy the lake again. We have camp directors buying canoes again, and sailing clubs expanding activities and running schools again. We have poker races, and we have sailing regattas again.
How could life be any sweeter than it was these past two years? And nobody can blame it on rain anymore.

[Bearislandmoose]

The 'performance crowd' are now trading in their boats for the big yachts. The big wakes are eroding the shorelines and this is a bigger threat than SL.

Another tactic from the Democratic playbook; If everyone seems happy with the status quo, scare them into thinking it is just an illusion. They aren't really happy, they just think they are. "The man" is really working behind the scenes to undermine it all. Nice try.
You keep schpilling this tripe, but I've not seen one example where one of your small group of "get out of my way" cowboys has traded his Thunder Boat for a Carver and gone around swamping those "fat cat shore front owners" to punish them for the SL. Can you give us a few specific examples? And if they are doing so, its all the more reason to start adding more NWZs, isn't it?

Since you are referring to the playbook anyway, maybe you should go back and try that "but you're a poacher" ploy again. That worked so well for you last time.

[Bearislandmoose]

... I'm sick and tired of the Democrats from the southern states moving up here and telling NH natives what we can and cannot do. :coolsm:

I'm as sick of it as you are, but once Mr. Verdonck moved up here, he became an equal citizen of this state, and we have to respect that. I just wish he'd adapt to the way we do things up here. Calling your group "Safe Boaters" was the type of shady tactic you usually see in the politics "down there", not up here. Eventually he'll learn that the people up here are too smart for stunts like that...it backfires when it is done up here. It's like saying "I know you people up there in NH are a bunch of idiots (to use Hazelnut's term), so I don't have to be honest with you...you'll buy anything I sell you." I got very offended by that and know that many others around here did too.

[Seaplane Pilot]

I'm as sick of it as you are, but once Mr. Verdonck moved up here, he became an equal citizen of this state, and we have to respect that. I just wish he'd adapt to the way we do things up here. Calling your group "Safe Boaters" was the type of shady tactic you usually see in the politics "down there", not up here. Eventually he'll learn that the people up here are too smart for stunts like that...it backfires when it is done up here. It's like saying "I know you people up there in NH are a bunch of idiots (to use Hazelnut's term), so I don't have to be honest with you...you'll buy anything I sell you." I got very offended by that and know that many others around here did too.

Speak for yourself - there is no "WE". It's you and your ilk, period. Your agenda is so transparent and you and your entire group are imploding (just like the democratic party). You really need to find a new hobby. I heard candle making is quite nice :laugh:

[VitaBene]

I'm as sick of it as you are, but once Mr. Verdonck moved up here, he became an equal citizen of this state, and we have to respect that. I just wish he'd adapt to the way we do things up here. Calling your group "Safe Boaters" was the type of shady tactic you usually see in the politics "down there", not up here. Eventually he'll learn that the people up here are too smart for stunts like that...it backfires when it is done up here. It's like saying "I know you people up there in NH are a bunch of idiots (to use Hazelnut's term), so I don't have to be honest with you...you'll buy anything I sell you." I got very offended by that and know that many others around here did too.

Ahhhh... it is so glad to have you back, I needed a good laugh!

I see you are back down in the basement again.

[Bearislandmoose]

...why are you all for initiating laws? ...

I'm not trying to initiate any laws. I like things just the way they are on the lake now, as do the overwhelming majority of the Lake's owners. I say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

And thank you for not insulting or calling me any names, that was refreshing.

[Bearislandmoose]

... once Mr. Verdonck moved up here, he became an equal citizen of this state, and we have to respect that...

Speak for yourself - there is no "WE". It's you and your ilk, period.

I don't agree. I think all of us have to accept the fact that a lot of people, like OCD, are moving north into NH and once they are here, they are NH citizens and have the same rights and privileges as you and me. While you may not like that, it is what it is. I just wish the people moving up here would be doing so because they like what NH is and has always been and want to enjoy that with us, not because they want to bring to NH what drove them out of MA, or wherever. And coming here and using the name "Safe Boaters" on a club started by a "Thunder Club" member for the stated purpose or repealing our safe boating laws is just so "MA", that I don't feel OCD knows what NH is really all about. He'll learn.

[Bearislandmoose]

I think it did more harm than good.

I'm sure it did just that for a very few people. I know of at least eight of them. But those people were the ones who caused all this in the first place, so they have to live with what they wrought. And those are the people you should be mad at, not following. These people "thundered" around the lake at completely inappropriate speeds in completely inappropriate vessels, causing many of the lake's more appropriate users to stay home. Weekends especially had become a time for "regular folk" to leave their boats sitting at their docks, because it had become a free-for-all out there. How was that fair? These few loud aggressive boaters were on this very forum bragging about speeds like 80 or 90 MPH, on this lake! On the weekend! How in the world could that have been "safe"? And some of these same boaters had names on their boats that suggested no respect for others...suggested that they'd love an opportunity to run you down if you didn't get out of their way. And some of them would be on these forums and the other GFBL forums after those same weekends talking about all the time they had spent at Naswa, how much they had drunk over the same weekend they were boating so fast, and how big their heads were on Monday morning. How did they get home from the Naswa in that condition? Meanwhile, we have people being killed on the lake by some of these same drivers in some of these same boats, going too fast, and we are supposed to excuse it because "they were drinking"?
Then these same cowboys start an anti-SL club and name it "Safe" boaters??? And you guys fall for it???
I feel bad for the good, safe boater who likes the high speed thrill and who had bought an expensive offshore boat and used to like to put the throttle down now and then, when it was safe to others for him to do so (like on a Wednesday afternoon in late November). But he was not the object of that SL law, he is an unintended but necessary victim of it. And he needs to recognize who brought the law on him. It was not Warren or Ed or Sandy (assuming those are all not the same teenage boy). It was people like OCD. This is one of the very people who could not understand what Lake Winnipesaukee was to so many people and made the SL such an overwhelming favorite. Now you rally behind him and expect him to get it repealed for you? It's like hiring OJ Simpson as your spokesman in an anti gun control campaign. He might get the NWZ at the Barber's Pole repealed, but the fastest you'll ever be able to go through there (legally) is 45mph.

[sunset on the dock]

He might get the NWZ at the Barber's Pole repealed, but the fastest you'll ever be able to go through there (legally) is 45mph.

Unless of course the get out of my way crowd continues to thumb their nose at reasonable limits. I could see this crowd pushing the likes of LeTourneau and Forsythe to push for a bill such that there would be no speed limit on the broads("hey, what have we got to lose"). In response, their opposition agrees that yes, the broads can have a faster speed limit(45 MPH) than the rest of the lake while the bays and coves would all have a SL of 30-35 MPH. One might easily argue that 45 MPH is too fast for Wolfeboro Bay, Winter Harbor(or even the Barber Pole). And then the people in the Barber Pole might not even need to pursue a NWZ! Funny how things sometimes work out.

[Bearislandmoose]

... don't preach to me or tell me what to do unless you decided to be civil.

Agreed. I am a big advocate of civility.

[Bearislandmoose]

What make you guys thank the lake is better off?

Thank you for not calling me any names.

To answer your question; I found boating much more enjoyable the past two years.
I found that plenty of the big performance boats were still around, they just seemed to have been going slower this year. I can't say whether they stayed under 45 all the time, but they certainly were not out there going 80 or 90 anymore, at least while I was out there.
While I saw just as many boaters on the lake this past year, I noticed a greater number of those were smaller "family" boats; 21-footers and such. Yet I felt a lot more respect and friendliness out there. Maybe it was just a coincidence, or maybe I just happened to be in the right place at the right time so often over the past two years, but that is what I saw.
While I do have a power boat that might be able to do 45 (not really sure), I typically spend my boating time trolling or sailing. I never had a single case this year or last where a big performance boat was thundering straight at me, way too fast, and I had to worry whether he was going to run me down. I never once had to say an Act of Contrition or think about jumping overboard. I cannot count the number of times in past years where I had such incidents. Maybe it was just a coincidence.
You might disagree...you might be seeing things differently. That is your right. You might have seen hundreds of former performance boaters now piloting Carvers and using them to terrorize the shore front owners with huge eroding wakes. But I did not see that...not once. You didn't see what I saw, I didn't see what you saw. No big deal. I don't think you are lying and I hope you don't think I am lying. I just saw different things than you did.

Isn't a civil debate fun?

Ed

[sunset on the dock]

The biggest thing we noticed this summer was a difference in our trip through the Broads to go to Wolfeboro. Same thing...no huge performance boats coming up behind you (we wondering whether our relatively small boat will be seen) then passing by you with a deafening roar. No boats tearing out through the inlet to Wolfeboro Bay at some ungodly speed. We were far more comfortable having the kids out in kayaks and our 11 y/o seemed so proud to have a little more independence which comes not only with age but our comfort level to let him venture further from the cottage. Our neighbors pretty much agree that the noise level was significantly less. The whole scenario seems more in tune to what people want when coming to the lake for recreation. And all this with businesses in the area (according to some article I read in the LDS or Citizen) reporting they are doing significantly better than last year.

[Bearislandmoose]

... passing by you with a deafening roar. They call that "thundering". There are actually clubs for these people built around this activity. They are called "thunder clubs". And they have forums where they brag about who is the best "thunderer". I swear this is the truth. You can't make this stuff up.

... Like loud mouth from George Diner flaunting the Meridith bay no wake. How about Rusty Maclear and his big resort? Dumping tons of phosphate and chemicals on his million dollar lawn? He's one of the founders. How about Brad Thurston and his looney renters. They are really bad. How come the founders can't show good examples of being good for the lake?

I can't speak for them, but anyone selfishly breaking our laws is a real idiot in my book (sorry for using such a harsh term, but sometimes it is called for). I don't know any of these people, but I think you should report them. I have no qualms about reporting illegal activity when I see it.

[Bearislandmoose]

So what is the Winfabs and the SL supporters doing to promote safety?

I can't speak for anyone else, but as for me; I am respecting all of our boating laws, respecting other boaters, making sure that my boating does not have any negative impact on anyone else, and not putting any other boaters at risk just so that I can have a thrill. I believe if we all did the same, there would be no problems on the lake.

[Bearislandmoose]

I thought you guys were going to pass laws limiting size of boats and HP.

I'm not involved with anything like that. Where did you hear this? Was it from the same person who told you that Rusty McLear is dumping phosphates in the lake? Was it from the same person who told you all the performance boat owners are trading them for cabin cruisers and swamping the shore front owners to punish them for supporting the SL? Was it the same person who told you the BP lakefront owners are opposed to a NWZ there and that they were behind the effort to repeal it? We need to put a stop to all these stories if they are false, or start gathering more evidence so we can prosecute these perpetrators if these stories are true.
Please give more details and I will help you address these things. What, specifically, have you heard and from whom, specifically? The only thing I hate more than a polluter or an environmental terrorist is a liar.

[Acres per Second]

They don't respect the rights of the property owners as most of them are not voters. I'm one of few year round residents that do not tolerate laws telling us lake folks what to do.
The law tells lakefront residents that anyone can anchor in three inches of water directly in front of your place.

"The lake belongs to everybody". :rolleye2:

How well are you tolerating that? :rolleye1:

I think it is Winfabs as most of their signature came from elsewhere in NH. Not from the lakes region. They had the legislatures fooled that they were signatures from the lake.
Why not elsewhere besides the lakes region? :confused:

"The lake belongs to everybody".

More laws. It will never end.
"The lake belongs to everybody", but look to SBONH-NHRBA to bring at least three more laws to the lake—this year alone.

If I were a resident, I'd be embarrassed for SBONH-NHRBA in their arrogance will attempt to "flip" hard-fought New Hampshire laws.

What must SBONH-NHRBA think of New Hampshire's legislators, that such years-long deliberations can be so readily overturned?

[Mark]

The only thing I hate more than a polluter or an environmental terrorist is a liar.

Is a liar someone who makes a promise never to post here again but is back here again with numerous posts? Is that like a lie or just another exaggerated statement that is just one of many posted to mislead and go off topic?

I wish you would keep your promise. This web site was a nicer place for that short time without your constant character assassinations, personal attacks and skewed view. We know you dislike Scott, SBONH and performance boats. Pounding that message over and over again is getting sickening and ruining a great web site.

Have a nice life Bearisland moose (aka elchase and whomever) but take your lies elsewhere please. Honor your promise.

[Bearislandmoose]

Is a liar someone who makes a promise never to post here again but is back here again with numerous posts? I am keeping my promise not to post on that moderated forum where I made that promise, and will only post on this unmoderated forum unless someone taunts me back over there...I promise.

that is just one of many posted to mislead and go off topic? Ironically, your post is misleading and off topic.

I wish you would keep your promise. I'm sure you would like all of the 86% of Granite Staters who favor the SL to shut up and let you guys turn this into another Winnilakers.com. Or you might enjoy the SBONH forum better... nobody is allowed to post there unless they are anti SL. Every post is given 7 "thanks". It's a mutual admiration society. But every post is also being screenshot for future reference;)

We know you dislike performance boats. I love performance boats...at 45MPH or less. Stop lying.

[Bearislandmoose]

The Church Landing pollution was published last summer in the Meredith paper. The free one available in Hannaford's. I searched but cannot find anything where Rusty McClear was found dumping phosphates into the lake. I saw an article where there was run-off through the stream entering near Town Docks, but that was assumed to come form the Fire Station project. Can you give me a link to the story or tell me the date? I'm not saying that you are making this up, but I'd rather discuss it over the actual facts versus a vague recollection of them.

As for the BP No wake, a number of my friends own property there. They never knew it was coming. That what pi**ed them off. I'm confused. In most of your posts, you have expressed hatred of shore front owners. Now you are agreeing they have special rights? Anyway, the only person from SBONH-NHRBA that I am aware of that has come forward claiming to own waterfront property on BP is Hazelnut, and he has said he agrees with is neighbors and is in favor of the NWZ, though admitting that is for selfish reasons. Can you tell us who else you know who lives on the BP and is against the NWZ? I'd assume they have been making their opposition public, and signed the SBONH-NHRBA petition, so there should be no reason not to identify them. I'd just like to compare the names to the tax maps.

I was a member of Winfabs in the beginning. I thought it was a good thing. I've just spoken to several of the "founders", and nobody remembers you or anyone who they think could be you. Can you tell me if you were using an alias? Where/when were the meetings you attended, and who exactly said they were going to push for HP and size limits? Please provide some evidence of your membership so we can show that these people are lying.

As you can see, I'm not making these things up. Give your friend Sandy, Rusty, Merl or Brad a call if you want further clarification. These are not my friends, and I am not calling you a liar, but as I said, I cannot confirm your account at all. Please give me more specifics and I will get to the bottom of this. If these things you are saying are true, I want to expose it as much as anyone.

I will be against any and all future laws that will tell me what I can do on the lake. How about a bill that tells you that you have to let some stranger tie up to your dock overnight if he says he is drunk? Are you against that?

We are not going to give in to someone who is not a lake native or residence. Like OCD (Scott Verdonck), who is from MA?

BTW I happen to enjoy all the pro and amatuer races we had on the lake. It's a thing of the pass, Thanks to you supporters. But such permitted events are exempt from the speed limit. And those races stopped ten years before the SL for financial reasons. So what do the SL supporters have to do with that?

They moved the water ski events to Winnisquam and one pro water skier moved to Rocky Pond in Gilmaton. A pro wakeboarder move to Lake Norman in NC. Thanks to all the hostilities brewed on this lake. These events moved from Winni, one to NC, because of the SL supporters...ten years before the SL? If that is what they are telling you, then I think they are pulling your chain. Don't you?

[sunset on the dock]

Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, " martini " in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"


In light of the alcohol tainted reputation of your movement, isn't it time for a new signature?

[Bearislandmoose]

Sandy, Rusty, Merl and Brad are the founders. So obviously you are spinning something! I'm outa here!

You throw out all these wild accusations about people, make unsubstantiated claims that you were part of Winfabs until you "found God", and tell all these unbelievable tales, then when asked for some details to back up any of it all, you accuse the asker of "spinning something" and just say "I'm outa here!" (sic)? Sounds very fishy to me. If I didn't see how truthful a person you claim to be, I'd have to suspect you have been making all this stuff up to scare and slander. Is SBONH-NHRBA putting you up to this?

[Seaplane Pilot]

Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, " martini " in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"


In light of the alcohol tainted reputation of your movement, isn't it time for a new signature?

As I've said before: How many times a day do you people polish your halos?

[Bearislandmoose]

As I've said before: How many times a day do you people polish your halos?

Are you defending BWI? If one of "us people" had a signature like that, you would not be the first to chastise it? Come on.
That signature is the perfect summary the SOBNH philosophy. I'm surprised you all don't use it.

[chipj29]

Are you defending BWI? If one of "us people" had a signature like that, you would not be the first to chastise it? Come on.
That signature is the perfect summary the SOBNH philosophy. I'm surprised you all don't use it.

I know, right? I mean his signature is an obvious implication that he is a regular offender of BWI laws. And of course, that also implies that all SBONH members are regular offenders of BWI laws.

Who wouldn't come to that conclusion? :rolleye2:

Hey BIM, you have never seen that quote, or a similar one 1,000 times before in other places?

:rolleye1:

[Bearislandmoose]

Hey BIM, you have never seen that quote, or a similar one 1,000 times before in other places?:rolleye1:

Yes ...on the SOBNH and OSO forums...where it belongs. But BH is the only one who claims to be drinking martini's while piloting his boat. The others seem to prefer beer, maybe because it doesn't spill as easily as they "skid in to the dock sideways", screaming "WOO HOO what a ride! Was that a kayak I ran over out there?".
Thank God for the SL.

[gtagrip]

Yes ...on the SOBNH and OSO forums...where it belongs. But BH is the only one who claims to be drinking martini's while piloting his boat. The others seem to prefer beer, maybe because it doesn't spill as easily as they "skid in to the dock sideways", screaming "WOO HOO what a ride! Was that a kayak I ran over out there?".
Thank God for the SL.

I could use a martini right now after reading this diatribe.:emb:

[Bearislandmoose]

I could use a martini right now after reading this diatribe.:emb:

I'm sure you could. But mixing cocktails so early in the day is probably a bad idea.

[NoBozo]

It takes a VERY Steady hand to balance a "Proper" Martini glass ..without spilling it......never mind on a boat. So anyone who can do it on a boat must also have a steady hand on the helm....otherwise the drink is spilled, and wasted.

Like me Mum used to say: "Waste Not, Want Not". :D :D Nb

[chipj29]

Yes ...on the SOBNH and OSO forums...where it belongs. But BH is the only one who claims to be drinking martini's while piloting his boat. The others seem to prefer beer, maybe because it doesn't spill as easily as they "skid in to the dock sideways", screaming "WOO HOO what a ride! Was that a kayak I ran over out there?".
Thank God for the SL.

Please provide exact quotes from BH where he claims to be drinking martinis while piloting his boat.

Please provide exact quotes where anyone claims to "skid in to the dock sideways".

Nevermind, don't bother. You won't find it, because the quotes don't exist. You are making stuff up, as usual.

[Bearislandmoose]

Please provide exact quotes from BH where he claims to be drinking martinis while piloting his boat.

Please provide exact quotes where anyone claims to "skid in to the dock sideways".

Nevermind, don't bother. You won't find it, because the quotes don't exist. You are making stuff up, as usual.

Chip,
Under Scott Verdonck's draconian rules, we are not allowed to quote the SOBNH forum outside the SOBNH forum. "What happens at SOBNH stays at SOBNH...or expect a letter from our lawyer". I suppose Scott thinks this will keep their law-breaking activities secret...but it wont;). You'd be amazed at how many of them admit to breaking our laws. And these are Stephen's pals? Anyway, you will need to view those discussions for yourself, if you qualify for membership...How fast can you drink a liter of tequila?

As to this forum, you have surely read BH's signature yourself, so why play this game? Are your really going to pretend you don't understand it? Come on. He might not specifically say that the vehicle he is driving while drinking martinis is a boat, but keep in mind that this is a boating forum, and BH has many times scolded others for violating forum rules when they post non-boating issues. And if it is a car that he is driving while drinking his martinis and skidding sideways, that is just as bad...and illegal.
I'm not saying that it is illegal to be drinking while driving a boat in NH, if not yet drunk, so he might not actually be breaking the law, but based on all the over-drinking that your group brags about, its doubtful that any of you know how to keep it to one martini when you are boating. But I guess people who cannot grasp why huge boats thundering around at 90MPH on a crowded lake is not safe are never going to understand the logic in laws against BWI either. This is why you need a new Governor like Stephen. Maybe he will repeal our BWI laws for you too.

[gtagrip]

Chip,
Under Scott Verdonck's draconian rules, we are not allowed to quote the SOBNH forum outside the SOBNH forum. "What happens at SOBNH stays at SOBNH...or expect a letter from our lawyer". I suppose Scott thinks this will keep their law-breaking activities secret...but it wont;). You'd be amazed at how many of them admit to breaking our laws. And these are Stephen's pals? Anyway, you will need to view those discussions for yourself, if you qualify for membership...How fast can you drink a liter of tequila?

As to this forum, you have surely read BH's signature yourself, so why play this game? Are your really going to pretend you don't understand it? Come on. He might not specifically say that the vehicle he is driving while drinking martinis is a boat, but keep in mind that this is a boating forum, and BH has many times scolded others for violating forum rules when they post non-boating issues. And if it is a car that he is driving while drinking his martinis and skidding sideways, that is just as bad...and illegal.
I'm not saying that it is illegal to be drinking while driving a boat in NH, if not yet drunk, so he might not actually be breaking the law, but based on all the over-drinking that your group brags about, its doubtful that any of you know how to keep it to one martini when you are boating. But I guess people who cannot grasp why huge boats thundering around at 90MPH on a crowded lake is not safe are never going to understand the logic in laws against BWI either. This is why you need a new Governor like Stephen. Maybe he will repeal our BWI laws for you too.

Now I need 2 martini's. Oh look, it's noon time, I think a 3 martini lunch is in order. ;)

[chipj29]

Chip,
Under Scott Verdonck's draconian rules, we are not allowed to quote the SOBNH forum outside the SOBNH forum. "What happens at SOBNH stays at SOBNH...or expect a letter from our lawyer". I suppose Scott thinks this will keep their law-breaking activities secret...but it wont;). You'd be amazed at how many of them admit to breaking our laws. And these are Stephen's pals? Anyway, you will need to view those discussions for yourself, if you qualify for membership...How fast can you drink a liter of tequila?

As to this forum, you have surely read BH's signature yourself, so why play this game? Are your really going to pretend you don't understand it? Come on. He might not specifically say that the vehicle he is driving while drinking martinis is a boat, but keep in mind that this is a boating forum, and BH has many times scolded others for violating forum rules when they post non-boating issues. And if it is a car that he is driving while drinking his martinis and skidding sideways, that is just as bad...and illegal.
I'm not saying that it is illegal to be drinking while driving a boat in NH, if not yet drunk, so he might not actually be breaking the law, but based on all the over-drinking that your group brags about, its doubtful that any of you know how to keep it to one martini when you are boating. But I guess people who cannot grasp why huge boats thundering around at 90MPH on a crowded lake is not safe are never going to understand the logic in laws against BWI either. This is why you need a new Governor like Stephen. Maybe he will repeal our BWI laws for you too.

Seriously? You are taking this a bit too far.
You have posted ridiculous stuff in the past, but you have clearly jumped the shark here.

[tc_mike]

As to this forum, you have surely read BH's signature yourself, so why play this game? Are your really going to pretend you don't understand it? Come on. He might not specifically say that the vehicle he is driving while drinking martinis is a boat, but keep in mind that this is a boating forum, and BH has many times scolded others for violating forum rules when they post non-boating issues. And if it is a car that he is driving while drinking his martinis and skidding sideways, that is just as bad...and illegal.

Wow, that's an interesting interpretation. I've seen derivatives of this saying in a number of other forums and such - I always assumed it was a humorous way of saying something along the lines of "life should be enjoyed"... or "be sure to have fun". It never occurred to me to interpret this saying in way that includes any sort of motor vehicles.

[Bearislandmoose]

It never occurred to me to interpret this saying in way that includes any sort of motor vehicles.

No surprises there...have another drink. And when I say "drink" I of course mean "potato chip".

[Pineedles]

OCD's first post on this thread, reposted as a reminder of what civility is.

How has the lake changed????

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well we are into another year of the speed limit. Much different then last. Beautiful Hot and Sunny Weather. No one can argue that the weather has been a deterent. The economy has not rebounded as much as hoped but I think we have turned a corner and are hopefully on the way to full recovery slowly but surely......

However with Labor Day approaching I can honestly say the lake has not become any safer. The accident rate is up, the registration rate is level (that of the early 90's) but yet we have a SL that was supposed to change all of that.

Now I don't want to see a debate get unfriendly but we have all been on the lake for many many hours and I really want to hear specifics as to if you have seen a difference.

Personally I still see the same crazy captains that either have no education or are purposely thumbing their noses at the 150 ft law, NWZ's and yes I have seen plenty of boats / PWC's exceeding the 45 mph law.

However I can say that in all instances where the SL was broken (again my personal observations) there was not a safety issue involved. However the multiple times I have been cut off by unaware captains and those going WAY too close to me caused me great concern.

So in the spirit of our webmasters request, please lets keep the conversation civil. I am sure we are able to do this, that is until the normal grenade throwers show up but lets see what rational information can be obtained before that.

Thanks

PS: I am only limited to 5 posts per day so I apologize if I don't answer your comments or questions regarding this post. However, now that we have 2 years behind us, this is the conversation that should have been taking place before the legislature jumped the gun. We now have seen 2 years of having the SL's in force. Of course we will be getting peoples beliefs at first but the facts and data from the MP are to follow soon. In the mean time all we have is personal observations AND we all know of the multiple accidents that have occured these past two years. What I am driving at is with the information that we now have from a compartive stand point have you seen a difference? Of course you will have the hardliners that say everything is perfect, but if that were the case why are many now trying to futher restrict us with more NWZ's, stricter noise restrictions, and may I dare say size / HP? I thought SL were supposed to make everything better????

[gtagrip]

Chip,
Under Scott Verdonck's draconian rules, we are not allowed to quote the SOBNH forum outside the SOBNH forum.

Sooo, basically making things up then. I believe Chip requested specific quotes. I'm sure you can find those specific quotes in this forum.:rolleye2:

BIM, you are letting me down. Do your homework, I'm sure you can pull something out of your.............