Boating decal, rental bills clear hurdles....
 

A glimpse of things to come.....


A bill that would create a $20 fee for non-registered out-of-state boaters is being recommended for passage by the House of Representatives' Resources Recreation and Development Committee.

The bill is among two that cleared hurdles last week. The second bill would require boating rental agencies to register with the state and be more stringent about whom they hand the keys to.

A proposal that would require the purchase of a "boater education decal" to operate on inland waters has been given the "ought to pass" tag by the committee after a 16-4 vote on an amended version of the bill.

House Bill 815 would require non-registered boaters to purchase a sticker through the Department of Safety, but those with New Hampshire registrations would receive the decal for free.

Any boat whose size or classification would require it to be registered in New Hampshire would need to have a sticker with the decal under the proposed law, being sponsored by Rep. Chris Christensen, a Republican from Merrimack.

Christensen has been working with representatives from the New Hampshire Lakes Association to craft a bill aimed at boosting the contributions of non-registered boaters toward the cost of a lake management process that involves the N.H. Fish and Game Department, the Department of Environmental Services and its Dam Bureau, and the Marine Patrol.

Christensen says the current system does not require any permits for boaters who aren't registered in New Hampshire and who use their boats on inland waters for less than 30 consecutive days.

The decal has nothing to do with the state's official Boating Education Program but is being called a "boating education" sticker because it would provide recipients with information on issues like the spread of milfoil and other exotic weeds in New Hampshire waters. Maine has a similar decal that is required for out-of-state boaters.

The bill was placed before the Resources Recreation and Development Committee last week during a public hearing that saw most opposition relating to the allocation of revenues from its sale and concerns about how it might impact tourism.

The original version of the bill proposed that money from the $20 decals would be split, with $6 going to the N.H. Clean Lake Program and $6 going to the Dam Maintenance Fund.

The Department of Safety would get $2 from each decal as a processing fee and $4 that would go into the Marine Patrol's Navigation Safety Fund.

Another $2 from each decal would have gone toward the Fish and Game Department's public access efforts that help install boat ramps on inland bodies of water.

Christensen said the panel voted 20-0 to amend the bill so that each agency would receive $4.50 before recommending its passage by a 16-4 vote.

The panel also amended the bill to include a "sunset" clause that would require that come up for review in five years.

The bill's sponsor said the largest amount of opposition to the bill came from Rep. James Aguiar, D-Campton, who he expressed concerns about its enforceability by Marine Patrol.

Christensen said he has few concerns about the ability of Marine Patrol to enforce a law that would simply have officers checking for decals much like a police officer would look for an inspection sticker or a registration.

"My opinion is it's kind of like State Police checking your inspection or registration," said Christensen, adding that it obviously wouldn't be Marine Patrol's main task.

Derek Durbin, the environmental policy director for the N.H. Lakes Association, said he was pleased that the bill cleared the hurdle and is now headed toward the Ways and Means Committee.

However, some parties remain skeptical about a bill that they fear could hurt tourism.

Dick Smith of the N.H. Bass Federation told the committee he had "mixed" feelings about the bill during the public hearing and said the issue of tourism should be in the forefront of lawmakers' minds when it comes to the floor.

"We don't know for sure what impact this will have on our tourism ... I think Maine set a bad precedent. It's something legislators should give a lot of consideration to before they pass it," said Smith.

Smith said he understands that the bill would assist in the funding of departments like Fish and Game, which he admits is in need of serious budget help.

It was Smith who argued before the committee that Fish and Game should be given more money from the decal and he said the amended version is far more favorable.

"We are going to support this bill as amended," said Smith of the Bass Federation.

Christensen said he expects the bill to hit the full House floor in the next two weeks.

The House Transportation Committee has also recommended the passage of a HB 714 that seeks to require boating rental agencies to register annually with the Department of Safety.

The bill seeks to remedy concerns that some rental outfits are not providing adequate boating instruction to customers and would allow the state to revoke their registrations if they do not assure an operator understands New Hampshire boating laws before they turn over the keys.

The boating rental registration bill was recommended as "ought to pass" by a 12-0 vote in the Transportation Committee.

Ok I could live with this
 

Ok I could live with this .... it doesn't appear as though they have targetted having to get stickers for canoes and kayaks.... but they want motor boaters to pay a little more.... Just on thing, why not raise my registration fee and not have me put an additional sticker on my boat?

Thanks for posting this Woodsy......

NH registered boats get the sticker for free.... it WILL have to be displayed if passed.

The Kayak/Canoe sticker is a completely different piece of legislation... its on the fast track as well.

Woodsy

Deja Vu
 

Aren't we talking basically the same thing that was going on before NH moved to bow numbers for inland waters?

Back in the early to mid 80's we all got number plates from NH. NH didn't recognize the bow numbers from other states and, conversly, you couldn't boat in another state w/o registering your boat there and getting bow numbers. If NH passes this law anyone who uses the inland waters of another state can eventually plan to run into reciprocal fees.

bow sticker
 

This is just adding weight to the bow of boats, and causing larger wakes. Movable advertising with 0 impact. Does not the legislature of NH have better things to pass such as speed limits for bycles, roller skates, and perhaps even speed limits for state troopers cars.:eek:

Consider yourselves lucky..
 

The "Preserve Maine Waters" stickers, AKA "Milfoil" stickers are sold exclusively to help the prevention and control of invasive plants and fish being introduced into Maine's inland waters. If your boat is registered in Maine the fee is $10, if registered out of state, it's $20. It's a great program and I don't have a problem with the $10.

http://www.maine.gov/dep/blwq/topic/...invsticker.htm

Blue Thunder

Stickers
 

Because the guy that makes the sticker wants to make a few bucks... no other reason.... If they want to put a fee in place that is fine, but if I register my boat in NH it should be part of the registration fee.... I have no problems with and addition fee as long as I know where the money is going ..... but additional stickers is ridiculous.... I do agree you need to do something for the out of staters.... but in state registrations having to display another sticker is only benefiting one person.... the guy making the stickers......

I have also found that if you do not want to put the sticker on your boat that you can just keep it handy and when you are going by show it to the guys if they ask.

Jon

Why doesn't New Hampshire just ban all out of state boaters and be done with it? This constant barage of licences, speed limits, stickers, etc is ridiculous. It is quite clear to me that the owners of the McMansions want everbody off "their" lake. It would be best to just announce that from now on the only people welcome on the lake are shorefront property owners with property valued above 2 mil. I have been fishing and boating on the lake for over 25 years I have contributed greatly to the area through my purchases of fishing licences boating registrations, loging .meals etc.
If New Hampshire continues to reach into the pockets of out of state boaters they will stop coming. Then the next big issue on this forum will be the failing economy in the lakes region.

Huh?????

Barking up the wrong tree here, if your going to rant, at least get the story straight...........

Maybe you could educate me then. The way I read this bill is, as an out of state boater who does not register my boat in NH I am going to be forced to pay an additional $20 for a sticker. Is this correct?

Yeah, I think you got that part right, at least according to Woodsy's original post. The part you're wrong about is blaming the lake front and mcmansion owners for this. Instead you should be blaming the liberal tax and spend legislature for this. ( I know this was championed by a "Republican", I stand by my statement.) Most of the lakefront owners I know could care less about you and your fishing pole and certainly wouldn't be sitting around trying to devise a $20 sticker to make you stay away. Many of us are from out of state also and are used to being turned upside down and having the money shaken out of our pockets by the perpetual tax and spend pols. Many of us also knew what we were getting into when we bought our properties. Welcome to the club. Enjoy the lake.

Sorry for the rant but, what I was trying to say is between operator licencing (ridiculous), the price of an out of state fishing licence and now the possible addition of another fee to hit the out of staters I think NH is shooting itself in the foot. How much does it take before the out of stater decides it is not worth the trip? also, factor in high fuel cost to get there. These people are the bread and butter for the region. Maybe it's time NH stops turning them upside down and shaking the money out of their pockets. NH may have some serious revenue issues but I just think reaching deeper into the tourist pockets is not the answer.

No problem, nothing wrong with a good rant, I just wanted to make sure you directed your anger were it belongs, not to say some lakefront owners think the way you describe, but most if not all I know don't. Also, don't think of the issues as revenue issues, think of them as spending issues which require the politicians to figure out how to forcibly extract money from us to pay for their inefficiency.

Rayhunt --- most states have an Annual decal for use with the bow numbers. That allows easy identification of wether the craft or for that matter snowmobile (and my car is not registered in NH) I suspect your license plates do too.

House passes $20 non-resident decal fee...
 

The House, by an overwhelming margin, passed the $20 non-resident boater decal fee on to the Senate yesterday.

Brief article in today's on-line edition of the Union Leader.

Skip
 

Can you post the HB # ? I want to read the amended version.

Hb 815
 

You will be looking for HB 815....:)

clarification?
 

Non-RESIDENT or non-REGISTERED in NH?

Many non-residents have boats registered in NH. Is it a correct assumption that if the boat displays NH Bow Numbers, this $20 "stick-em-up"....er... sticker fee.... is not required?

I am pretty sure the bill is for non NH registered boats.... very similar in scope to what Maine requires for out-of-state boaters.

Woodsy

Clarification....
 

Woodsy is correct..if the boat is not displaying a New Hampshire registration then it will need the supplemental decal.

Remember, this has only passed the House. It must now survive the Senate where it can be rejected or ammended prior to being sent off to the Governor's office for a signature.

Thanks
 

Looking at it now amended, this really only effects out of state registered craft. NH bow numbers will not have to display an additional sticker. So if someone from ME or MA comes to the lake they will have to get this sticker to go beside their MA1234 Bow #'s. I also saw that the rental agent bill made it through the House and on to the Senate. I especially like that one, its about time rental agents were made more accountable. IMO

Kind of funny
 

I find this bill very interesting. You would think that in a state where the tourists are extremely important to the enconomy they would try to do things to entice people to come and visit. Not that I think many people will be detered from coming to NH because of this extra fee.... but it may stop some..... Another issue here I see, is that if the state expects out of staters to pay a fee to go boating, then the state better start making improvements in both the availability and conditions of public ramps.... After growing up out west where there where always nice ramps and docking facilities for the general public at lakes and rivers, I find that the facilities all over the northeast are poor, and if a state like NH wants out of state boater to pay a fee to use it lakes, it needs to also provide the facilities for people to do so....

I know they are working on this, on many lakes..... but if they want to pass a bill like this they need to hasten thier efforts....

Back in the 70's NH had something called a "Commuter Tax". NH imposed a tax on Mass and Maine residents (and anyone else) that commuted to work in NH but lived out of state.

As I recall it was ruled an illegal tax because it was imposed on one group of people (out of state residents) but not another (in state residents who worked out of state.)

So how would this be different? If out of state boaters are required to purchase a decal to boat in NH and that decal was made available to an in state boater for free.

Given that registrations are reciprocal between states how would this be legal?

It would be like saying to MA, ME, VT, NY drivers you need to pay a fee (beyond those obnoxious tolls that hit everyone) to drive in NH but NH registered vehicles do not have to pay the additional fee.

I have both a NH and MA registered boat. So I am not qualified in one, but I am in the other?

Lawyers are going to make a killing!

Its no different than Maine requiring out-of-state boaters to purchase a "Milfoil" sticker... In fact ALOT of states charge different fees to boat on thier state waters. Lake George NY has an access fee.

I am sure its very much allowed

Woodsy

Wording
 

It is all in the wording.... if NH (or Maine, or NY) made out of staters Register boats then it would be a problem....but why if they call it an "Milfoil fee" or "education fee" then I am sure it slides through the loop holes..... Now do I think it is right....hell no.... why someone may ask.... because what is next..... not necessarily a "commuter tax" but gezzz what about a "education sticker" for an automobile to make sure out of staters know any state specific driving rules.... There is a slippery slope here...

Legalities, always legalities!
 

Woodsy is correct. There is a huge legal difference between tax and fee issues concerning the motoring public and fees individual states attach for state owned entities, like inland waters.

The States receive federal funding for roadways and there is ample case law discerning what fees and taxes can be imposed on folks travelling roadways.

However, the inland waterways are owned by the State of New Hampshire with no such federal impositions. The State can and does charge access fees where necessary.

In Airwaves case, he/she will not have to purchase a sticker for his/her New Hampshire registered boat, but will have to purchase a sticker for the boat not registered in this State, if the bill is passed as proposed.

I am no way saying the bill is fair or even a smart proposal. My only point here is the State is allowed to impose such fees on its inland waters if it so desires.

Think of it as an enhanced registration fee for an out of state entity. No more illegal than the different set of fees each state charges for its out of state OHRVers, snowmobilers, hunters, etc.

Skip for the most part I agree with what you are saying, however people must realize here that the State does get Federal Money that goes to help protect the lakes and rivers, as well I believe there is some Federal Money that goes to the Marine Patrol.... So much like the roadways there are some issues here that could make this a slippery slope and cause a lot of controversy. And much like Making NH recongnize out of state registrtions back in the 80s the Federal Goverment has input to all of this as well.... Hence why this is being called a "education" sticker....there are loop holes all over the place.... and once they do this for boats don't think they will not think about clever ways to do things for automobiles....weather they are able to pass anything or not is another story.....

I found this story on the wire today, as I read it, both in state Maine boaters and out of state boaters have been required to buy a "milfoil" sticker. (unlike the proposed law in NH where NH boaters would not be required to buy the sticker)
The change will mean that Maine registered boats won't have to display the second sticker, but the fee (tax) will be included in their registration while out of state boaters will have to pay the fee (tax) and display the decal.

I also wanted to point out the same thing LIforrelaxin posted. NH does get federal dollars for the inland waterways so while the state "owns" inland waters such as Winnipesaukee, federal dollars are involved.

If NH passes something like this, and it ticks off the "right" people in MA, I can see a new border war...my warped mind could see a MA lawmaker deciding all NH registered motor vehicles traveling in MA pay an "insurance fee" to drive on MA roads since according to the NH DMV website
We haven't had a good border war since the days of Mel Thompson and Ed King! :laugh:

Federal dollars with strings attached...
 

You are both correct, and I would venture to say that there are federal dollars involved in every aspect of recreation here in New Hampshire....from hiking to bird watching to snowmobiling and ATVs. The difference is when you receive federal funds specifically for roadways there are significant strings attached....a few threads away the debate on seat belt usage is a perfect example, the feds are withholding 3 million a year in highway safety funds until we mandate seatbelt usage.

There are no such strings attached concerning the funding we receive (or most other states for that matter) for many of our recreationtal endeavours.

Remember, while this is being called an educational sticker the bill clearly states that the purpose of the sticker is an access fee for out of state registered boats. The only educational aspect to this sticker is the fact that you will get an educational pamphlet when you receive the sticker. States can and do charge out of state visitors access fees at a different rate then residents. I see no federal or constitutional issues with this practice.

Don't be mislead by the name. This bill has little to do with education and everything to do with having an out of state access fee. It may be a horrible idea but it is a practice well recognized and well implemented throughout the country.

Years ago, if your boat wasn't registered in NH, you were required to pay a fee to be on the lake. Maybe if people don't want to pay it, there will be a few less boats, pleasing some of the people who complain that the lake is too busy?

I seriously doubt that a $20 fee will even make the average out of state boater blink, let alone keep them away. After all, boating is not a cheap passtime, :rolleye1: , and $20 is pretty insignificant in the overall cost of owning a boat!

I suspect that the key to easy acceptance of the new stickers will be to make them easy to obtain, especially for "spur of the moment" visitors.

Silver Duck

Silver Duck -- I agree completely

example: How many people stay away because of the $charge$ to launch the boat ?

The extra $20 I spend every year for my Maine milfoil sticker does not bother me. The hassle of getting it at the Bridgton ME town hall, which has limited hours, bothers me. The folks that enforce the sticker laws should have them for sale for $25 for those that don't have a chance to get one through "normal means" and don;t mind spending an extra fiver for convenience.

Silver Duck wrote:
AHHH you underestimate just how petty a Mass Legislator can be :eek:

How could the move be justified on Beacon Hill in retaliation for a $20 sticker in NH?

Revenue from an "insurance fee" on uninsured or under insured NH drivers could be placed into the "high risk pool" and it would have several immediate benefits in Mass.

1. It would reduce the amount of money insurance companies pay into the pool (by extension the amount of money good drivers pay into it)

2. It would reduce the number of Mass residents registering their car in NH to avoid paying insurance

3. Reducing the number of Mass residents registering in NH would boost sales and excise tax revenue.

4. Reducing the number of uninsured or under insured cars from NH on Mass roads would result in the Insurance Division looking at more cuts in premiums.

Since Mass requires its own residents to purchase a minimum amount of insurance this wouldn't be like the old commuter tax NH imposed years ago.

All it has to do is hit a Mass lawmaker the wrong way. Or actually any Mass resident for that matter since in Mass we can request specific bills be filed through our reps/senators, someone points out how much $ NH is getting from its boaters "education fee" from MA residents...

As for paying access fees for things like launching a boat, you are buying a service so it's really not the same argument.

I'm not saying these things will come to pass, I am just saying that they could.

Airwaves...

Although NH doesn't require insurance, a NH registered vehicle is required to have insurance in order to drive legally in Massachusetts.

Woodsy

Sort of
 

If I read this right, a non-resident can drive in Mass for 30 days each year without liabilty insurance as long as the vehicle would be legal to drive in the non-resident's state. It's a little convoluted but that how I read it.

PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT


TITLE XIV. PUBLIC WAYS AND WORKS


CHAPTER 90. MOTOR VEHICLES AND AIRCRAFT


MOTOR VEHICLES


Chapter 90: Section 3. Operation of motor vehicles owned by non-residents; liability insurance; vehicles used in connection with place of business; suspension or revocation of right to operate vehicle; registration


Section 3. Subject to the provisions of section three A and except as otherwise provided in this section and in section ten, a motor vehicle or trailer owned by a non-resident who has complied with the laws relative to motor vehicles and trailers, and the registration and operation thereof, of the state or country of registration, may be operated on the ways of this commonwealth without registration under this chapter, to the extent, as to length of time of operation and otherwise, that, as finally determined by the registrar, the state or country of registration grants substantially similar privileges in the case of motor vehicles and trailers duly registered under the laws and owned by residents of this commonwealth; provided, that no motor vehicle or trailer shall be so operated on more than thirty days in the aggregate in any one year or, in any case where the owner thereof acquires a regular place of abode or business or employment within the commonwealth, beyond a period of thirty days after the acquisition thereof, except during such time as the owner thereof maintains in full force a policy of liability insurance providing indemnity for or protection to him, and to any person responsible for the operation of such motor vehicle or trailer with his express or implied consent, against loss by reason of the liability to pay damages to others for bodily injuries, including death at any time resulting therefrom, caused by such motor vehicle or trailer, at least to the amount or limits required in a motor vehicle liability policy as defined in section thirty-four A.

True, but the changes I envision would also require proof of that insurance, such as a "boater eduction deca....opps "insurance coverage decal" if a NH vehicle is uninsured or under insured in order to drive in MA.:rolleye1:

jrc;
you are correct in the law as currently instituted. again, what I envision is a change to the MA laws if the appropriate persons are ticked off enough, a newly written law if you will.:eek:

Marine Patrol opposes "education" decal
 

The Marine Patrol takes a stance against the education decal proposal.

Entire story can be read HERE at the on-line edition of today's Citizen.